Village Health Care Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.
- Location
- 1709 South Main, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012
- CMS Provider Number
- 375171
- Inspections on file
- 21
- Latest survey
- April 10, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 10 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Village Health Care Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident did not have a required comprehensive care plan completed within the timeframe specified by facility policy following completion of the admission MDS assessment. Record review showed that although the admission assessment was completed, no comprehensive care plan was present in the EMR, and only an undated baseline care plan was available. In interviews, the MDS coordinator acknowledged that a comprehensive care plan had not been developed for the resident, and the administrator confirmed that only the baseline care plan could be found and that they were aware the comprehensive care plan was not done.
A resident with Huntington’s disease, anxiety, depression, delusions, and a documented high risk for wandering repeatedly eloped from the facility despite an existing care plan and wandering risk evaluation. The resident left the building on multiple occasions, including episodes where they fell in a field, were found at a hotel, intentionally burned the back of their hand while away, and were located by police at a known drug house and by family at a local business. Staff consistently relied on q15-minute visual checks as the primary intervention after each elopement, did not update the care plan with new interventions, and did not conduct root-cause investigations of the elopements. The DON later acknowledged that the q15-minute checks were not effective, and camera reviews showed discrepancies between staff reports of last contact and the actual time the resident exited the building.
A resident did not receive a required quarterly MDS assessment within three months of the admission assessment. Record review showed multiple documented assessments and entries, but no quarterly assessment after admission. An LPN temporarily responsible for MDS assessments and care plans while the MDS coordinator was on leave reported being unaware that the quarterly MDS for this resident was due, and the DON confirmed the assessment was late because the interim MDS nurse did not complete the required duties.
A resident with an identified elopement risk had an elopement care plan initiated but it was never reviewed or revised after multiple subsequent elopement incidents. Record review showed no updates to the original elopement interventions, and staff interviews confirmed that the care plan had not been changed. An LPN believed the DON had recently updated the plan, while the DON stated the plan was not updated because an interim MDS nurse did not perform required duties.
Routine safety inspections of bed frames and bed rails were not conducted for several residents using beds with attached side rails. Maintenance staff confirmed that no inspections or records existed and expressed confusion about what qualified as a bed rail, despite many beds having side rails attached.
Two residents were prescribed and administered Seroquel for dementia-related diagnoses, contrary to facility policy that restricts antipsychotic use to specific, indicated conditions. An LPN reported the medication was used for behavioral issues, while the DON confirmed antipsychotics are not approved for dementia treatment. Despite this, multiple residents were receiving these medications for dementia.
The facility did not provide written notices of transfer to residents or their representatives when residents were sent to the hospital for acute medical issues. Staff interviews confirmed that written notices were not given, and the facility's policy did not include this requirement. Multiple staff members, including the ADON, interim DON, and an LPN, were unaware of the need to provide such notices, and a review of records showed no evidence of compliance.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment, an indwelling urinary catheter, and multiple diagnoses did not have any documentation of routine catheter care in the clinical record over several months. Although the resident reported receiving frequent catheter care, facility leadership confirmed that without documentation, completion of care could not be verified.
Two residents were not offered pneumonia immunizations as required, despite physician orders, due to the facility lacking a policy and not consistently offering the vaccine. Both the infection preventionist and DON confirmed the absence of a policy and inconsistent practice.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses did not receive scheduled laboratory tests as ordered by the physician. Review of records and staff interviews confirmed that required labs were not completed for three consecutive scheduled periods, despite facility policy mandating timely processing and arrangement of such tests.
The facility failed to provide Advanced Beneficiary Notification (ABN) forms to three residents who were discharged from Medicare Part A Services but remained in the facility. The MDS coordinator was unaware of the requirement to provide ABNs in such cases.
The facility failed to ensure that residents were free from physical restraints not required for medical treatment. A CNA locked the wheelchairs of three residents with cognitive impairments, preventing them from moving freely. The DON confirmed that this action constituted a restraint, which was against the facility's policy.
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a resident's assessment, incorrectly listing pneumonia as a current diagnosis despite no recent or current treatment for it and a history of pneumonia dating back to 2017. The MDS coordinator confirmed the inaccuracy after review.
The facility failed to update the care plan for a resident with congestive heart failure, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation. The care plan did not reflect the healing of a stage two pressure ulcer or the resident's admission to hospice, despite a physician's order and acknowledgment from the MDS coordinator.
The facility failed to ensure the ice machine was clean, with black and pink substances observed on the deflector plate. A dietary aide confirmed the substances were mold and stated the machine had last been cleaned four weeks ago, with the ice company responsible for its cleaning.
Failure to Complete Comprehensive Care Plan Following Admission Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete an initial comprehensive care plan within seven days of the admission MDS assessment for one resident. Facility policy titled "Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team" dated 09/2013 required that a comprehensive care plan be developed within seven days of completion of the resident assessment (MDS). The admission assessment for Resident #1 was dated 02/10/26 and showed completion on 02/12/26, but review of the EMR revealed no comprehensive care plan for this resident. On 04/10/26, the facility provided an undated baseline care plan for Resident #1, but no comprehensive care plan was found in the EMR. During interviews on 04/10/26, the MDS coordinator stated they did not develop a comprehensive care plan for Resident #1, and the administrator confirmed that only a baseline care plan could be located and acknowledged awareness that a comprehensive care plan had not been completed. The administrator identified that 52 residents resided in the facility at the time of the survey, and the deficiency was identified for 1 of 7 sampled residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans.
Repeated Elopements and Self-Harm Due to Ineffective Supervision and Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and prevent elopement and self-harm for a resident identified as high risk for wandering and elopement. The resident was cognitively intact on admission, with a BIMS score of 14, but had diagnoses including Huntington’s Disease, anxiety, depression, delusions, and hallucinations, and a history of falls prior to admission. The admission assessment documented that the resident wandered one to three days per week and that this wandering placed them at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place. A care plan dated at admission identified the resident as at risk for elopement and wandering related to hallucinations, with interventions focused on distraction, identifying wandering patterns, monitoring for fatigue and weight loss, and providing structured activities and reorientation strategies. A wandering risk evaluation completed shortly after admission scored the resident at high risk for wandering. Despite this, the resident repeatedly eloped from the facility. On one occasion in October, the resident left the facility without notice, crossed the parking lot, and fell in an adjacent field before being returned with assistance from local authorities; the facility’s intervention was to initiate visual checks every 15 minutes. In early November, staff documented escalating psychotic behavior, including the resident talking to themselves, insisting on contacting the FBI, and making threats toward staff and other residents. During this episode, the resident pulled a phone line from the wall and then ran out the front door, leading staff to call 911 and local authorities to locate the resident at a hotel. The facility later documented that the resident was involuntarily admitted to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation and treatment and subsequently returned to the facility. Following the resident’s return, elopements continued. In mid-January, staff were unable to locate the resident in the facility; family located and returned the resident, and documentation showed the resident had intentionally burned the back of their hand with a cigarette lighter while away because they did not want to come back. The state reportable incident for that date documented the elopement and the use of every 15-minute checks but did not document the burn injury, which was later noted on a weekly skin observation as multiple blister sites from self-inflicted burns. In early February, the resident again left the facility after being denied early medication, walking out the front door after announcing they would leave; local authorities later found the resident at a residence identified as a known drug house. The resident eloped again the following day after being denied unscheduled medication and a supervised walk; staff did not realize the resident was missing for approximately 30 minutes, and family found the resident about a mile away at a local business. For each of these elopements, the facility’s intervention remained every 15-minute visual checks, and no new interventions were added to the care plan. Staff interviews further described the resident as independent but needing supervision, with a history of illicit drug use and drug-seeking behaviors, and noted that behavioral triggers often involved not receiving medications when desired. An LPN reported that walking outside with the resident or engaging them in music sometimes helped, and that if the resident became too upset, they would call an ambulance or leave the facility. The DON acknowledged that the facility did not investigate the elopements to determine root causes, although camera footage was reviewed to see when and how the resident exited. The DON noted that on one occasion the resident watched activity around a back door before exiting, and that staff reports of when the resident was last seen were inaccurate compared to camera footage. The DON also stated that the intervention of every 15-minute checks did not appear to be effective, yet this intervention was repeatedly used as the primary response without modification of the care plan, contributing to the failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent further elopement and self-harm.
Removal Plan
- Place the identified resident on continuous 1:1 supervision (line-of-sight monitoring).
- Ensure the assigned 1:1 staff maintains visual contact with the resident at all times.
- Provide uninterrupted 1:1 coverage by relieving the sitter with a designated backup staff member during all breaks.
- Require the charge nurse to assign a backup sitter at the beginning of each shift.
- Document backup staff on the assignment sheet.
- Prohibit breaks without a confirmed face-to-face handoff between sitter and backup.
- Require the 1:1 staff to document every 15 minutes that they have eyes on the resident and the resident’s location on the 15-minute checks sheet.
- Require completed 15-minute check sheets to be turned in to the DON for approval.
- Assign a secondary staff member each shift as designated break coverage to ensure no lapse in supervision.
- Verify door alarm functionality immediately (maintenance and nursing staff).
- Update the resident’s care plan to reflect 1:1 supervision, high elopement risk status, and supervision requirements.
- Complete wandering risk assessments for all residents in the facility.
- Educate all staff on elopement risk, what to do in case of elopement (stay with resident, call 911, ensure safe return, notify charge nurse; charge nurse to notify physician/administrator/DON/family), and 1:1 sitter responsibilities.
- Do not allow staff who missed the education to clock in/work until education is provided and understood.
- Maintain attendance sheets in the education file.
- Review and update the resident’s comprehensive care plan via the interdisciplinary team to include high elopement risk identification, continuous 1:1 line-of-sight supervision, designated break relief protocol with face-to-face handoff, redirection techniques, monitoring frequency and documentation requirements, and conducting an investigation and root cause analysis after any additional exit-seeking behavior to update the care plan.
Missed Quarterly MDS Assessment Due to Interim Staff Oversight
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a required quarterly MDS assessment for one resident, resulting in the resident not having an updated assessment within three months of the admission assessment. Record review showed an admission assessment dated 09/28/25, an annual assessment, a discharge with return anticipated dated 11/06/25, and an entry dated 11/19/25 for this resident, but no subsequent quarterly assessment was documented. During interview, an LPN who was one of two interim nurses assigned to perform MDS assessments and care plans while the MDS coordinator was on leave stated they were not aware that this resident’s quarterly MDS was due. The DON confirmed that the quarterly assessment for this resident was late because the interim MDS nurse did not perform the required assessment duties.
Failure to Revise Elopement Care Plan After Multiple Incidents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update and revise the care plan for elopement for one resident after multiple elopement incidents, despite regulatory requirements that care plans be developed, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals. Record review showed the resident’s elopement care plan, initiated on 09/28/25, identified a concern for elopement but contained no evidence of review or updates following elopement events on 10/15/25, 11/06/25, 01/16/26, 02/08/26, or 02/09/26. On 02/19/26, an LPN confirmed that the elopement interventions had not been updated since the care plan was first developed. On 02/23/26, another LPN reported believing that the DON had recently updated the elopement care plan, which was not the case. Later that same day, the DON stated that the care plan for this resident had not been updated because the interim MDS nurse had not performed their duties. These findings demonstrate that, although the resident had repeated elopement episodes documented in the record, the care plan remained unchanged from its original version, and staff interviews confirmed that no revisions were made in response to the subsequent events.
Failure to Conduct Routine Bed Frame and Bed Rail Safety Inspections
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct routine safety inspections of bed frames and bed rails for three of four sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards. Observations showed that these residents were using beds with 1/8 sized side rails attached to the bed frames. When questioned, the maintenance staff member confirmed that no inspections of bed frames or side rails had been performed and that there were no records of such inspections. The maintenance staff also indicated a misunderstanding regarding what constituted a bed rail, as they did not consider the smaller side rails in use as bed rails. It was identified that 46 beds in the facility had side rails attached, but no inspection records were available.
Unnecessary Use of Antipsychotic Medications for Dementia Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were not prescribed antipsychotic medications for the medical diagnosis of dementia, as evidenced by the cases of two residents who were administered Seroquel for dementia-related diagnoses. One resident was prescribed Seroquel 50 mg twice daily for vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances, and received 47 doses over a one-month period. Another resident was prescribed Seroquel 12.5 mg daily for unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbance, receiving 26 doses in the same timeframe. The facility's policy states that antipsychotic medications should only be used when necessary to treat specific, indicated conditions. During interviews, an LPN stated that Seroquel was being used for behaviors such as hitting or refusing care, and confirmed that the documented diagnosis being treated was dementia. The LPN was not aware if Seroquel was approved for the treatment of dementia. The DON acknowledged that antipsychotic medications are not approved for the treatment of dementia and indicated a preference for discontinuing their use, stating that such medications should only be used for specific problems like delusions. Despite this, the facility had seven residents prescribed antipsychotic medications, with the two sampled residents receiving them for dementia diagnoses.
Failure to Provide Written Notice of Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written notices of transfer to residents and their representatives when residents were transferred to a hospital. Record review and staff interviews revealed that three residents who were hospitalized for various acute medical conditions, including tremors and unresponsiveness, abnormal heart rate with difficulty breathing, and abnormal CO2 levels, did not receive the required written notification of transfer. The facility's policy on emergency transfer or discharge did not include the requirement to provide such written notice prior to transfer. Interviews with the ADON, interim DON, and an LPN confirmed that written notices of transfer were not given to any residents transferred to the hospital, and staff were unaware of the regulatory requirement to do so. A review of the electronic medical records for the affected residents showed no evidence of written transfer notices being provided. The ADON stated that 54 residents had been transferred to a hospital during the review period, and none had received the required written notice.
Failure to Document Catheter Care in Medical Record
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that routine catheter care was documented in the clinical record for one resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. According to the facility's undated Catheter Care, Urinary policy, the date, time, and name and title of the individual providing catheter care should be recorded in the resident's medical record. A quarterly assessment showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment, an indwelling urinary catheter, and diagnoses including acute kidney failure and diabetes mellitus. A review of the resident's medical record for three consecutive months revealed no documentation of catheter care. The resident reported receiving frequent catheter care, but both the ADON and DON confirmed that if catheter care was not documented, it could not be verified as completed.
Failure to Offer Pneumonia Immunizations Due to Lack of Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were offered pneumonia immunizations as required, as evidenced by the review of medical records for two of five sampled residents. Physician orders for both residents indicated they were to be offered pneumonia immunizations if indicated, but their medical records did not show that the immunizations had been received or offered. During interviews, the infection preventionist confirmed that the facility did not have a policy regarding pneumonia immunizations and had not been offering them consistently to residents. The DON also acknowledged the absence of a policy and the lack of consistent offering of pneumonia immunizations to residents.
Failure to Complete Physician-Ordered Laboratory Tests
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that laboratory tests ordered by a physician were completed for a resident with dementia and osteoarthritis. According to the resident's admission record and quarterly assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment and was to receive specific lab tests every six months as ordered by the physician. Review of the health record showed that the last lab results were from January 2024, with no evidence that the required labs for July 2024, January 2025, and July 2025 were completed. Interviews with staff confirmed that these lab tests had not been performed, despite the facility's policy requiring staff to process and arrange for ordered diagnostic and lab testing.
Failure to Provide Advanced Beneficiary Notifications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Advanced Beneficiary Notification (ABN) forms were provided to three residents who were reviewed for ABNs. Resident #9 was admitted to Part A Skilled Services and remained in the facility after being discharged from Medicare Part A Services without receiving an ABN. Similarly, Resident #11 and Resident #21 were also discharged from Medicare Part A Services and continued to stay in the facility without being provided ABNs. The MDS coordinator admitted to not being aware that ABNs were required when residents were discharged from Medicare Part A Services but remained in the facility.
Failure to Ensure Residents are Free from Unnecessary Physical Restraints
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were free from physical restraints that were not required to treat a medical symptom. This deficiency was observed in four residents who had their wheelchairs locked by a CNA, preventing them from moving freely. The facility's policy on physical restraints states that no resident should be restrained for convenience, yet the CNA admitted to locking the wheelchairs to prevent the residents from pushing away, acknowledging that the residents were unable to unlock the wheelchairs themselves. Resident #7, who had dementia and was moderately impaired in daily decision-making, Resident #13, who had dementia and was severely impaired in daily decision-making, and Resident #14, who had major depressive disorder and was severely impaired in daily decision-making, were all observed with their wheelchairs locked. The DON confirmed that locking the wheelchairs constituted a restraint, which was against the facility's policy. This action restricted the residents' freedom of movement without a medical necessity, leading to the deficiency noted in the report.
Inaccurate Resident Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of assessments for a resident diagnosed with cerebral infarction, reduced mobility, and hypertension. A quarterly assessment inaccurately listed pneumonia as a current diagnosis for the resident. However, a review of physician orders and the resident's clinical record revealed no recent or current antibiotics prescribed for pneumonia, and the resident's history of pneumonia dated back to 2017. The MDS coordinator, upon review, could not locate any information supporting the pneumonia diagnosis in the quarterly assessment, confirming the inaccuracy of the MDS.
Failure to Update Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure care plans were updated for a resident who was admitted with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation. The care plan, revised on 01/23/24, documented a stage two pressure ulcer to the coccyx but did not document that the ulcer had healed. Additionally, the care plan did not reflect the resident's admission to hospice, despite a physician's order dated 01/26/24 to admit the resident to hospice. On 04/11/24, the MDS coordinator acknowledged that the care plan had not been updated to reflect the healed wound and the hospice admission, stating they had forgotten to make these updates.
Ice Machine Cleanliness Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the ice machine was clean. An untitled and undated policy indicated that ice should be produced, stored, and dispensed in a manner to avoid contamination, and the ice dispenser should be cleaned and sanitized at least monthly or as needed. An invoice dated 03/08/24 documented that only the bin sensor was cleaned, with no other cleaning of the machine recorded. On 04/09/24 at 11:25 a.m., the ice machine was observed to have black and pink substances on the deflector plate in the bin. Dietary Aide #1 confirmed that the ice machine had last been cleaned four weeks ago, identified the substances as mold, and stated that the ice company was responsible for cleaning the machine. The aide also mentioned that the ice machine should be shut down and cleaned immediately.
Latest citations in Oklahoma
Surveyors found that staff failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during catheter care for a resident with an indwelling catheter. Facility policy required targeted gown and glove use for high-contact care under EBP, and the resident had physician orders for catheter care every shift and placement on EBP. During an observation, two CNAs provided catheter care without wearing gowns. Both CNAs later acknowledged that gowns should have been used, and the DON confirmed that gowns are required for catheter care for residents on EBP. The resident, who was cognitively intact, reported that staff usually did not wear gowns during catheter care.
The facility did not update its facility-wide assessment as resident acuity increased, resulting in an inaccurate determination of needed licensed nursing staff. The written assessment specified one RN for one day shift per week and projected a need for 10 LPNs across 24 hours, with detailed LPN coverage by shift, and stated it should be reviewed and updated as needed to guide staffing decisions. At the time of survey, the DON reported 36 residents in the facility, acknowledged that resident acuity was higher than when the assessment was completed, and stated that the actual pattern was two LPNs on the floor for the day shift and two LPNs for the night shift, with the DON, ADON, and MDS coordinator available only during weekday business hours. The DON identified a total of seven licensed staff available and stated that more staff were needed to work directly with residents, confirming that the facility assessment no longer reflected current resident needs or staffing resources.
A resident with a pressure ulcer received wound care during which an LPN and CNAs failed to follow basic infection control practices. The overbed table was not sanitized before wound supplies were placed, gloves were not changed after contact with feces, and the resident was repositioned onto a clean bed pad while still soiled. The LPN used the same contaminated gloves to handle personal items, suction equipment, wound care supplies, and to cleanse the resident’s skin and pressure ulcer, including applying collagen paste and calcium alginate with gloved fingers. Hand hygiene was not performed between glove changes, and the resident’s open wound came into contact with a cloth bed pad or pillow after cleansing and medication application but before the final dressing was applied.
A deficiency was cited for failure to prevent elopement and recurrent falls due to inadequate supervision, unsecured exits, and incomplete care planning. A newly admitted resident assessed as at risk for elopement and wandering had no related interventions on the baseline care plan, despite moderately impaired cognition and psychiatric and seizure diagnoses. This resident later left the building, was found several blocks away after falling and sustaining abrasions, and was subsequently observed at times without the one-on-one supervision that had been ordered, while a dining room exit door and perimeter gate remained unlocked and accessible. Another resident with vascular dementia, muscle weakness, and a history of multiple falls experienced several unwitnessed falls over months, culminating in two right hip fractures requiring surgical repair, yet fall-prevention interventions were not added to the care plan, and staff relied on verbal instructions and vague "close observation" rather than documented, individualized fall-prevention measures.
A resident with atrial fibrillation on Eliquis, with documented orders and a care plan to monitor and report signs of bleeding, experienced multiple episodes of active rectal bleeding while on the toilet, accompanied by anxiety, complaints of not being able to breathe, pain, pallor, and shivering. An ACMA and an LPN observed and documented that the toilet was full of blood and that the resident repeatedly refused transfer to the ER, but the LPN did not contact the physician or the family and instructed staff to continue monitoring. ACMA staff later attempted to follow instructions to contact family but reported no family contact information in the medical record, did not notify the physician, and ultimately called EMS only when the resident became pale and shivering; EMS found the resident unconscious amid evidence of a significant hemorrhagic event. Progress notes contained no documentation of physician or family notification during the change in condition, and the family, listed as POA and emergency contact in admission paperwork, reported they were not informed of the change in condition and learned of the resident’s death hours later.
A resident with recent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and a history of circulatory surgery was on multiple anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents (Eliquis, aspirin, Plavix) and had care plans directing staff to monitor for and report abnormal labs and signs of bleeding, including black or bloody stools. A critical hemoglobin of 6.3 g/dL was reported by the lab, which documented unsuccessful attempts to reach nursing staff; the result was later signed by facility staff, but the DON confirmed the physician was never notified and no intervention was documented. Subsequently, during a night shift, the resident developed acute profuse rectal bleeding with screaming, shortness of breath, and anxiety while on the toilet; an ACMA notified an LPN, who did not promptly assess the resident and instead instructed continued monitoring and attempts to convince the resident to go to the hospital. Nursing notes and EMS documentation showed a significant hemorrhagic event with extensive blood in the room and on the resident, yet there was no evidence of ongoing assessment, monitoring, or timely physician notification for the change in condition or the critical lab, leading surveyors to cite a deficiency under F684 for failure to provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders and the resident’s condition.
A resident with a history of circulatory surgery, an aortocoronary bypass graft, and on anticoagulant therapy experienced an acute onset of profuse rectal bleeding and shortness of breath during a night shift. An ACMA was functioning as charge on one hall while an LPN covered the other hall; the ACMA reported the resident’s bleeding and distress, and the LPN came once to the room but did not provide ongoing assessment or monitoring, later stating they were behind on work and relying on the ACMA to monitor. EMS later found the room with evidence of a significant hemorrhagic event and the resident unconscious on the toilet. Progress notes lacked documentation of significant change in condition, assessments, or interventions for the bleeding and respiratory distress, and the facility failed to notify the medical provider of a critical Hgb of 6.3 or of the acute bleeding. The facility also could not produce annual competency records for the LPN or ACMA, and the resident’s family was not notified of the change in condition or death until later.
A resident with a history of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and on anticoagulant therapy had a critically low Hgb on lab testing, but the lab’s critical results were not successfully communicated to a nurse and the physician was not notified. Later, the resident developed anxiety, SOB, screaming, and profuse rectal bleeding while on the toilet. An LPN was notified of these symptoms and received a photo showing a large amount of blood but did not perform an assessment or ongoing monitoring, relying instead on an ACMA despite acknowledging this was not standard procedure. There was no documentation of a significant change in condition or interventions in the progress notes. EMS was eventually called and found evidence of a major hemorrhagic event in the room before transporting the resident, and the incident was identified by the regional nurse consultant as neglect.
Surveyors found multiple food safety deficiencies involving approximately 80 residents, including unlabeled and undated stored food items, and an ice machine with visible pink and brown residue on the chute above the ice. The dietary manager acknowledged that food should be labeled and noted visible dirt when wiping the ice machine. A cook was observed preparing pureed food with one gloved and one ungloved hand, using the same gloved hand to handle both ready-to-eat food and kitchen surfaces without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene until after taking equipment to the dishwasher. The DON reported there was no policy for food storage or ice machine maintenance, and only prior-year invoices were available to show servicing of the ice machine, with no recent documentation provided.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition who required partial to moderate assistance with ADLs expired in an ambulance, but staff documentation did not accurately reflect the resident’s status. A nursing progress note describing severe anxiety, complaints of inability to breathe, and blood in the toilet was entered without being identified as a late entry. Task logs showed ADL assistance documented as completed after the resident’s death, instead of being marked as not available or not applicable. Staff interviews confirmed that tasks should not be documented as completed when a resident is no longer in the facility or has died, indicating a failure to follow the facility’s nursing documentation policy.
Failure to Use Gowns During Catheter Care Under Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s infection prevention and control program related to the use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during catheter care. The facility’s Infection Control policy dated 04/01/24 required targeted gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities under EBP. Physician orders showed that Resident #7 had an indwelling catheter with catheter care ordered every shift as of 01/07/26 and was placed on EBP as of 01/16/26. A quarterly assessment dated 03/27/26 documented that Resident #7 had intact cognition, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, and an indwelling catheter. On 04/29/26 at 11:03 a.m., CNA #1 and CNA #2 were observed providing catheter care to Resident #7 without wearing gowns, despite the resident being on EBP and the facility’s policy requiring gown use for such care. CNA #1 acknowledged that gowns should have been worn under EBP, and CNA #2 stated they had forgotten to put on a gown. Resident #7 reported that staff usually did not wear gowns during catheter care, and on 04/30/26 the DON confirmed that gowns should be worn when providing catheter care to residents on EBP.
Failure to Update Facility Assessment to Reflect Increased Resident Acuity and Staffing Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update its facility-wide assessment as resident acuity increased, resulting in an inaccurate determination of needed nursing resources. The written facility assessment dated 10/15/25 stated that one RN was needed for one day shift per week, including weekends, and projected a total of 10 LPNs needed to provide care in a 24-hour period. The assessment further specified that seven LPNs were needed for the day shift, five for the evening shift, and four for the night shift. The assessment document itself stated that it was to be reviewed annually and updated as needed, and that it was to be used to evaluate the resident population and determine the resources necessary to care for residents competently during day-to-day operations and emergencies, and to drive staffing decisions. At the time of the survey, the DON identified that 36 residents resided in the facility and reported that the acuity level of the residents was higher than it had been in October 2025 when the facility assessment was completed. The DON stated that the projected need for ten LPNs in a 24-hour period was not correct and described the actual staffing pattern as two LPNs working on the floor from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and two LPNs working on the floor from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., with the DON (RN), assistant DON (RN), and MDS coordinator (LPN) available to assist with resident needs during business hours, five days a week. The DON counted a total of seven licensed staff members available and acknowledged that more staff were needed to work directly with residents given the current higher acuity, demonstrating that the facility assessment had not been updated to reflect the current resident population and resource needs.
Improper Infection Control During Pressure Ulcer Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide pressure ulcer care in a manner that prevented contamination and potential infection for one resident with a pressure ulcer. During an observed dressing change, an LPN entered the resident’s room, pushed personal items aside, and placed plastic trash bags and wound care supplies on the overbed table without sanitizing the surface. The LPN and CNAs provided incontinent care during which feces remained on the resident’s legs and buttocks, and at least one CNA did not change gloves after wiping feces and before placing a clean cloth bed pad under the resident. The resident was repositioned onto the new pad while still soiled with feces. Wearing the same gloves used during incontinent care, the LPN handled the resident’s personal items, oral suction yankauer, and suction machine, and prepared wound care supplies, including soaking gauze in a cleansing solution. The LPN then used the same contaminated gloves to obtain wet gauze from the cleansing solution and clean feces from the resident’s legs and buttocks before proceeding to remove the old dressing and packing from the pressure ulcer. Some packing fell onto the cloth bed pad, and the resident’s back and buttocks, including the open pressure ulcer area after cleansing and medication application but before placement of the absorbent dressing, came into contact with the cloth bed pad or pillow. The LPN applied a collagen paste to the wound bed by inserting gloved fingers into a cup of white paste and then applied calcium alginate with the same gloved fingers, without using an applicator. The LPN discarded the gloves but did not perform hand hygiene before donning a new pair of gloves stored on the overbed table. During a post-observation interview, the LPN acknowledged feeling nervous, recognized that their gloves and multiple items and surfaces may have been contaminated by contact with feces, and stated that the resident’s bed pad and wound bed were likely contaminated during the dressing change.
Failure to Prevent Elopement and Recurrent Falls Due to Inadequate Supervision and Care Planning
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure the environment was free from accident hazards and that residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents, specifically related to elopement risk and fall prevention. One resident identified as a new admission was evaluated on 02/28/26 as being at risk for elopement and wandering, with documentation that the resident wandered around the facility and into rooms. Despite this evaluation, the baseline care plan dated the same day did not include any interventions for wandering or elopement risk. An admission assessment dated 03/06/26 documented moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 09 and diagnoses including schizophrenia and seizure disorder. On 03/07/26, the resident was reported missing from their room around 11:20 a.m., and an incident report and progress note showed the resident was found a couple of blocks from the facility, having tripped and fallen outside and sustaining abrasions to the hand and knee that required first aid. Following the elopement, documentation showed the resident was placed on one-on-one staff supervision and the care plan was updated; however, subsequent observations revealed lapses in supervision. On 03/11/26, the resident was observed in bed with a staff member seated outside the door, and the resident stated they were not allowed to leave the facility alone. On 03/12/26, the resident was observed in bed with no staff supervision, then walking out of the room toward the dining room without staff present, until an unidentified staff member later noticed the resident in the hall and alerted the charge nurse. Interviews indicated that prior to the elopement the resident had not been on frequent checks because staff did not consider them an elopement risk, despite the earlier evaluation. The ADON later stated the baseline care plan lacked elopement/wandering interventions because they had failed to communicate with the weekend RN who completed the elopement evaluation and were unaware the resident was at risk. Environmental observations on 03/13/26 showed the dining room exit door and the outside perimeter gate in the smoking area were unlocked and accessible to residents, and the DON and administrator acknowledged the dining room exit door was not secured and that the resident likely exited through the unlocked door and perimeter gate. The deficiency also includes the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision, reassess fall risk, investigate root causes, and implement fall-prevention interventions for a resident with a history of multiple falls. Facility records identified this resident as having several falls without injury on 06/04/25, 06/05/25, 06/18/25, 06/30/25, and 07/31/25, with no fall-prevention interventions documented for any of these events. A fall on 09/25/25 resulted in severe right leg pain and an emergency room visit, with a subsequent nurse’s note documenting a right hip fracture requiring surgical repair. Review of the care plan dated 07/31/25 showed no fall-prevention interventions in place for the 09/25/25 fall, and a later care plan dated 10/06/25 documented the resident’s diagnoses, including vascular dementia and muscle weakness, and the prior falls, but still showed no interventions for those falls. A nurse’s note dated 10/20/25 documented another fall on 10/19/25 that resulted in a second right hip fracture, again with no documentation of interventions in place to prevent that fall. Observations and interviews further demonstrated the lack of systematic fall-prevention planning for this resident. On 03/12/26, the resident was observed sitting in a geriatric chair near the nurse’s station with a fall mat at bedside and was later assisted to stand and ambulate with a walker. The resident reported falling frequently and not knowing why, and stated that staff followed them everywhere to prevent falls but were unsure what specific interventions were in place. An LPN stated the resident had frequent falls and that interventions included a fall mat at bedside and keeping the resident under close observation, but could not clarify what “close observation” entailed and acknowledged that interventions were communicated verbally rather than being reflected in the care plan. Another LPN stated they relied on the care plan to know fall-prevention interventions and, if not listed, had to depend on other staff for guidance. The MDS coordinator stated all falls, regardless of injury, should result in care plan interventions to prevent recurrence and did not know why this resident’s falls lacked interventions, and the DON confirmed there were no interventions on the care plan for the resident’s falls despite the expectation that such interventions should have been in place. Facility policies reviewed by surveyors underscored the deficiencies. An undated wandering policy stated that the facility would ensure the safety of residents who wander and that the MDS nurse would complete a wandering assessment on admission and work with the care plan team to develop, maintain, and update a care plan for each resident who wanders. A Falls – Clinical Protocol dated 03/2018 stated that staff and the physician would identify pertinent interventions to prevent subsequent falls and address the risks of clinically significant consequences of falling. A Care Plan Completion policy stated the facility would develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives, timeframes, and services to meet medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs. Despite these policies, the facility did not ensure that the elopement risk assessment for the first resident was communicated and incorporated into the baseline care plan, did not secure exit doors and perimeter fencing to prevent elopement, and did not consistently implement or document individualized fall-prevention interventions for the second resident after multiple falls and two hip fractures.
Failure to Notify Physician and Family of Significant Bleeding Episode in Anticoagulated Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a resident’s physician and family of a significant change in condition. The resident had a history of atrial fibrillation and was on Eliquis, with physician orders and a care plan directing staff to monitor and report signs of bleeding such as blood in urine or stool, black tarry stools, and other symptoms. The resident’s cognition was moderately impaired, with a BIMS score of 11, and they required supervision with ambulation and transfers and partial to moderate assistance with toileting hygiene. The admission contract identified a family member as the emergency contact and POA, with contact information provided. On the night of the incident, staff observed multiple episodes of active bleeding while the resident was on the toilet. Around 1:15 a.m., the resident was on the toilet and bleeding, with the toilet full of blood, and was reported to be screaming that they could not breathe. ACMA staff notified the LPN, left the blood in the toilet for the LPN to observe, and reported that the resident refused to go to the ER. The LPN assessed the resident at approximately 1:32 a.m., documented increased anxiety, complaints of not being able to breathe, and that most of the toilet contents were blood, and noted that the resident refused transfer to the emergency department. The LPN instructed ACMA staff to continue monitoring the resident and did not contact the physician or the family at that time. The resident continued to have episodes of bleeding while on the toilet around 2:00 a.m. and again around 2:50 a.m., with reports of pain, pallor, and shivering, and continued refusals to go to the hospital and to take pain medication. ACMA staff reported they were instructed by text to contact the family to encourage the resident to go to the ER but stated no family contact was listed in the medical record and did not call the physician. EMS was eventually called by ACMA staff when the resident became pale and shivering; EMS arrived to find the resident unconscious on the toilet with evidence of a significant hemorrhagic event in the room, including saturated towels and blood on the floor and on the resident. Progress notes did not show any contact with the physician or family during the change in condition, and the family member later stated they were not notified of the change in condition and did not learn of the resident’s death until several hours later. The facility’s failure to notify the physician and family of the resident’s serious change in condition was cited as an Immediate Jeopardy deficiency.
Failure to Respond to Critical Lab and Acute Bleeding in Anticoagulated Post-Surgical Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to promptly assess, identify, and intervene when a resident with a recent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair experienced an acute change in condition, including profuse bleeding from an unknown source and a critically low hemoglobin level. The resident had diagnoses including encounter for surgical aftercare following circulatory system surgery and presence of an aortocoronary bypass graft, and was receiving multiple anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications (Eliquis twice daily, aspirin daily, and Plavix daily), along with psyllium and Imodium for diarrhea. Facility policies required nurses to assess acute condition changes, obtain and report pertinent information to the physician, and promptly notify the physician in emergencies, as well as to review and act on lab and diagnostic test results based on the seriousness of abnormalities. The resident’s care plan directed staff to monitor for and report abnormal lab results and signs of bleeding, including black or bloody stools and significant changes in vital signs, and to avoid aspirin use with anticoagulant therapy. A laboratory report for the resident showed a critically low hemoglobin of 6.3 g/dL, with a normal reference range of 13.7–17.5 g/dL. The lab documented attempts to call the facility at 3:35 p.m. and again, with no answer and inability to reach a nurse, and the report was released later that afternoon. The report bore a staff signature dated several days later and a stamped physician signature without a date. The DON confirmed that the physician was not notified of this critical result and stated that the physician should have been notified immediately per facility procedure. Despite the resident’s anticoagulant therapy and care plan instructions to report abnormal labs, there was no evidence that the critical hemoglobin value was communicated to the physician or that any clinical intervention occurred in response to this lab finding. Subsequently, during a night shift, the resident developed acute profuse rectal bleeding while on the toilet, accompanied by screaming, shortness of breath, increased anxiety, and refusal to go to the hospital. An ACMA reported to an LPN around 1:15–1:32 a.m. that the resident was having bloody stool and distress, but the LPN did not immediately assess the resident and instead instructed the ACMA to monitor and convince the resident to go to the hospital. The nursing progress note later documented that the resident’s toilet contents were mostly blood and that the resident was educated about the need to go to the ED but refused. EMS records indicated that when they arrived, the resident’s room showed signs of a significant hemorrhagic event, with towels saturated with blood and blood on the floor, legs, socks, and in the toilet. The nursing documentation showed no ongoing assessment, monitoring, or intervention for the resident’s shortness of breath, screaming, blood in the toilet, or refusal of transfer during the period before EMS was called. The facility’s failure to identify, monitor, and provide continuing assessments for the resident’s change in condition, to notify the medical provider of the critical hemoglobin result, and to promptly notify the provider and intervene for the acute onset of profuse bleeding constituted the cited deficiency. The report also notes that staff interviews revealed gaps in practice and understanding related to change in condition and bleeding. The LPN acknowledged being concerned the resident was “bleeding out” and stated they were traumatized by the amount of blood, yet did not perform an immediate assessment when first notified of bloody stool and pain, relying instead on the ACMA to monitor and attempt to persuade the resident to accept transfer. The LPN further stated they typically remained on one side of the building and did not routinely go to the other side unless needed, and that they did not visually see the resident in distress until later. A CNA reported having seen dark, clumped stool earlier in the week and indicated they had only minimal education on signs and symptoms of bleeding. These documented actions and inactions, in the context of the resident’s high-risk status and existing policies and care plans, led surveyors to determine that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, the resident’s condition, and established protocols for change in condition and critical lab results. The resident’s family reported that the resident had ongoing diarrhea with horrendous odor and black color since before admission, and that staff were aware of the stool characteristics. Another CNA described the resident’s stool as dark black and mixed solid/liquid, resembling stool from someone taking iron, though they only observed it once and did not report red blood. The care plan specifically directed staff to monitor for black tarry stools and other signs of bleeding in the context of anticoagulant therapy, and to report such findings to the physician. Despite these documented risk factors, symptoms, and care plan directives, the record lacked evidence that staff recognized and escalated these signs as potential bleeding or that they communicated them to the physician prior to the acute hemorrhagic event. This pattern of missed recognition, lack of timely assessment, and failure to notify the physician of both critical lab results and acute bleeding formed the basis of the deficiency under F684 (Quality of Care).
Failure to Assess, Monitor, and Notify Provider for Resident With Profuse Bleeding and Critical Lab Value
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure sufficient and competent nursing staff to assess, monitor, and intervene for a resident with a known high-risk medical history who experienced an acute onset of profuse bleeding. The resident had a history of surgical aftercare following surgery on the circulatory system, including the presence of an aortocoronary bypass graft, and was receiving anticoagulant therapy (Eliquis) for atrial fibrillation. The resident’s care plan and physician orders directed staff to monitor for specific signs of bleeding and adverse reactions to anticoagulant therapy, such as blood in the stool or urine, changes in mental status, shortness of breath, and other symptoms. The facility also had an Acute Condition Changes – Clinical Protocol policy requiring baseline assessments, monitoring, and timely physician notification for acute changes in condition. On the night of the incident, assignment sheets showed that an ACMA was the charge nurse on one hall (South hall) for the 7:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. shift, while an LPN was the charge nurse on the other hall (North hall). EMS records documented that they were dispatched in the early morning hours after facility staff reported that the resident had blood in the stool starting about three hours earlier and was recovering from abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. When EMS arrived, they observed the resident’s room with signs of a significant hemorrhagic event, including towels saturated with blood and blood on the floor, and found the resident unconscious on the toilet with blood on their socks, legs, and in the toilet. Progress notes for that date did not show documentation of a significant change in condition, nor did they show assessments, monitoring, or interventions for the resident’s shortness of breath, screaming, blood in the toilet, or refusal to be transported to the hospital. Interviews revealed that the LPN was the only licensed nurse in the building on the weekend and did not obtain a full report on the South hall because the ACMA was functioning as the charge for that hall. The LPN stated that the ACMA reported the resident was screaming, hurting, having a bowel movement, and there was blood, and that the resident had a history of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery, raising concern about bleeding. The LPN instructed the ACMA to send the resident to the hospital, but the resident refused, and the LPN did not perform ongoing assessments or monitoring, citing being behind on work and relying on the ACMA to monitor and report. The ACMA reported that the resident was on the toilet and bleeding around 1:15 a.m., with vital signs within normal limits, and refused to go to the ER; the ACMA contacted the LPN, who came once at about 1:32 a.m. to check on the resident while the resident was back in bed, with blood left in the toilet for the LPN to see. The ACMA stated that later, as the resident continued to pass blood, became pale and shivering, and remained in pain while refusing pain medication and hospital transfer, they eventually called 911 when the resident’s condition worsened. The facility was unable to produce annual skills competencies for either the LPN or the ACMA, and a family member reported they were not notified of the resident’s change in condition or of the resident’s death until later, despite the resident’s room being on the South hall where the events occurred. The report also notes that the facility failed to notify the medical provider of a critical hemoglobin lab value of 6.3 (normal reference range 13.7–17.5) and failed to notify the medical provider of the acute onset of profuse bleeding. There is no documentation that the physician was contacted regarding the critical lab result or the resident’s active bleeding, despite facility policy requiring timely physician notification for acute changes in condition and the resident’s known risk factors and anticoagulant therapy. Additionally, the facility’s own policy required that direct care staff, including nursing assistants, be trained to recognize and report significant changes, and that phone calls to physicians be made by adequately prepared nurses with organized, pertinent information; however, the documented events and interviews show that the ACMA was functioning as charge on one hall and that the LPN did not consistently assess or directly manage the resident’s rapidly changing condition. These combined failures to assess, monitor, intervene, and notify the medical provider for a resident with profuse bleeding and a critical hemoglobin value constituted the cited deficiency.
Failure to Assess and Respond to Resident’s Significant Bleeding and Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident experiencing a significant change in condition and profuse bleeding was assessed and monitored by a licensed nurse. The facility had an Acute Condition Changes - Clinical Protocol requiring nurses to assess and document vital signs, neurological status, pain, level of consciousness, cognitive and emotional status, onset and severity of symptoms, and other clinical information, and to promptly contact the physician for emergencies. The resident had a history of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and was on anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation, with care plans directing staff to monitor and report signs and symptoms of cardiovascular issues and adverse reactions to anticoagulants, including blood in stool and shortness of breath. A physician’s order required weekly CBC and CMP labs while on skilled services. A lab report for the resident showed a critically low hemoglobin level of 6.3 g/dl, but the lab’s attempts to call the facility at 3:35 p.m. and again later were unsuccessful, and the physician was not notified of the results. Subsequently, during the night, the resident experienced increased anxiety, was screaming that they could not breathe, was on the toilet with most of the contents being blood, and refused to go to the emergency department. LPN #1 was notified at 1:32 a.m. of the resident’s condition, including shortness of breath, screaming, and blood in the toilet, but did not perform an assessment or ongoing monitoring, and there was no documentation of a significant change in condition or interventions for these symptoms in the progress notes. LPN #1 reported typically being the only licensed nurse in the building on weekends and stated they did not go to the resident’s hall for a full report, relying instead on an ACMA to monitor residents and report concerns. LPN #1 acknowledged being told that the resident was screaming, hurting, having bloody stool, and had a recent abdominal aortic aneurysm, and expressed concern about the resident bleeding out. LPN #1 received a texted picture of the blood at 2:25 a.m. and described being traumatized by the amount of blood, but still did not assess or monitor the resident, citing being behind on work and relying on the ACMA, despite stating that it was not standard procedure for an ACMA to assess, monitor, and send a resident to the hospital. EMS was finally contacted at 3:12 a.m., arrived to find evidence of a significant hemorrhagic event with blood-saturated towels and blood on the floor, and transported the resident, who expired in the ambulance shortly thereafter. The regional nurse consultant stated the incident was considered neglect.
Improper Food Storage, Ice Machine Sanitation, and Glove Use in Dietary Services
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in food storage and ice handling practices during kitchen observations. In one kitchen tour, they observed a white paper bowl containing orange ice cream wrapped in plastic wrap that was unlabeled and undated, as well as an opened bag of hamburger buns that was also unlabeled and undated. The ice machine had a pink substance on the white plastic chute directly above the ice, which, when wiped with a clean paper towel, resulted in a pink and brown speckled residue. The dietary manager acknowledged that the food items should have been labeled and stated they saw dirt on the towel used to wipe the ice machine chute. The DON reported there was no policy for food storage or the ice machine, and stated that ice machine maintenance was based on the machine’s indicator and then calling an outside company, with invoices available only for servicing dates in the prior year and no documentation provided for recent cleaning or maintenance. Additional deficiencies were observed in food handling and glove use by kitchen staff. One cook was seen working with one hand gloved and one hand ungloved, using the gloved hand to place cornbread into a blender, then touching the blender, a utensil, and returning to touch the cornbread without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene between contact with food and other surfaces. The cook later took the blender to the dishwasher and only then removed the glove and washed their hands. When interviewed, the cook stated their process for changing gloves was when changing the type of food and after touching utensils, and acknowledged they did not change gloves after touching the cornbread. The dietary manager stated the process for changing gloves was to change when staff touched something or something was dirty. The administrator identified that 80 residents resided in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inaccurate Post-Death Documentation and Failure to Follow Nursing Charting Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate and timely documentation in the medical record for a resident who died. Facility policy on nursing documentation required staff to chart as soon as possible after care, to enter the actual date and time of charting, and to clearly label any late entries with the date and time being documented. The admission assessment for the resident showed moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 12 and a need for partial to moderate staff assistance with most ADLs. An EMS report documented that the resident expired in the ambulance at 3:40 a.m. on a specified date. A progress note for that same date, timed at 1:32 a.m., described the nurse being notified that the resident was on the toilet, screaming that he could not breathe, with oxygen saturation at 98% and most of the toilet contents being blood; this note was not identified as a late entry despite the timing and circumstances. Task logs for the resident showed that staff documented completion of ADL assistance after the resident’s death. Specifically, the task log reflected that the resident received ADL assistance at 10:08 a.m. on the date of death, and additional ADL assistance entries at 6:54 a.m., 8:32 a.m., and 11:59 p.m. on another date, even though the resident had already expired. During interviews, a CNA stated that if a resident was not in the facility, the scheduled ADL task should be documented as the resident not being available. The RNC confirmed that if a resident had passed away, staff should not document task completion for that resident and that any remaining scheduled tasks should be documented as not applicable. These findings showed that staff documentation did not accurately reflect the resident’s status or comply with the facility’s documentation policy.
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.
