Balch Springs Nursing Home
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Balch Springs, Texas.
- Location
- 4200 Shepherd Ln, Balch Springs, Texas 75180
- CMS Provider Number
- 675057
- Inspections on file
- 39
- Latest survey
- May 7, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 9 (2 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Balch Springs Nursing Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, blindness, and full-care needs had no listed family or representative in the record, and staff reported no known visitors or guardian. The SW said guardianship had not been pursued, while the DON and NP acknowledged the resident could not make care decisions and that no orders designated a guardian or representative. The facility’s Resident Rights policy stated that the resident has the right to have a legal representative.
Failure to Deliver Resident Mail Promptly: The facility failed to ensure residents could send and receive mail and other materials in a timely manner. In a group interview, multiple residents stated they never received mail or that mail was not distributed on Saturdays because the AD did not work weekends. The AD said she passed mail Monday through Friday and was unsure who handled Saturday delivery, while the Administrator said weekend nursing staff were expected to pass mail. The facility policy required mail delivery within 24 hours of receipt.
Failure to Notify State LTC Ombudsman of Resident Discharge: The facility failed to send the required discharge notice to the State LTC Ombudsman for a resident who was discharged. The Ombudsman stated she never received the notification, the SW had no evidence of a report and was unaware of the monthly notification requirement, and the Administrator stated she did not know the rule. The resident had ischemic cardiomyopathy and a blank BIMS score.
A resident with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety, severe cognitive impairment, and behavior issues had a PASRR Level 1 that did not reflect her mental health diagnoses. The DON, Regional MDS Nurse, and ADM stated that a new PASRR review should be completed when a new MI diagnosis is identified, but the facility did not complete a new PL1 when the resident’s diagnoses were documented.
A CNA failed to perform hand hygiene after changing soiled gloves during incontinence care for a resident with ESRD and DM, and also used the same contaminated gloves to handle trash bags and place them in a pocket. The resident had a BIMS score of 13 and required extensive assistance with toileting. The DON stated staff were expected to perform hand hygiene between glove changes and use clean gloves when handling items.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, immobility, incontinence, and documented hospital orders for heel offloading was admitted without heel wounds but later developed bilateral heel blisters that progressed to an unstageable DTI on one heel and a Stage 4 pressure ulcer on the other. The care plan identified pressure ulcer risk but lacked specific interventions for heel offloading and q2h repositioning, and ordered head-to-toe skin assessments were missed on multiple dates. MAR/TAR records showed repeated failures to document ordered heel offloading and daily skin prep, CNAs reported heel protectors being removed and dressings not changed over weekends, and skin assessments in the EHR continued to describe intact skin despite existing wounds. The facility’s own skin integrity policy required regular repositioning and use of devices to protect bony prominences, but these measures were not consistently implemented or documented for this resident.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, immobility, incontinence, and multiple comorbidities was care planned for pressure ulcer risk, but the comprehensive care plan omitted ordered heel off-loading and q2h repositioning interventions. Despite pre-admission hospital documentation directing heel off-loading with boots or pillows, the facility’s care plan only addressed incontinence care, bathing, and weekly skin checks, and skin observation notes initially documented intact skin. The resident subsequently developed bilateral heel DTIs and a Stage 4 heel pressure injury, while interviews with family and staff revealed lack of consistent use of heel protection and absence of repositioning and off-loading interventions in the written care plan and on the TAR/MAR, resulting in a deficiency under F656 for failure to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan.
The facility's kitchen failed to meet food service safety standards, with issues such as improperly labeled and dated food items, dented cans not stored separately, and opened items not sealed properly. These deficiencies could lead to food-borne illnesses and cross-contamination, as observed during a survey.
Two residents with severe cognitive impairment and pressure ulcers were not repositioned every two hours as required by their care plans, leading to deficiencies in care. Observations showed that both residents remained in the same position without proper use of repositioning aids, contributing to the development and persistence of pressure ulcers. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in repositioning practices, and the facility's skin management policy was not effectively implemented.
The facility failed to act on pharmacist recommendations for drug regimen reviews for two residents. Recommendations for gradual dose reductions of medications were not addressed by the physician, leaving the medication regimens unchanged without documented justification. Interviews revealed a lack of clarity and documentation in handling pharmacist recommendations.
The facility failed to properly label and store insulin pens on the 200 hall medication cart, with two pens lacking open dates and two others used beyond the recommended 28-day period. RN D incorrectly believed long-acting insulins were valid until the manufacturer's expiration date. The DON and ADON confirmed the need for open dates and 28-day usage limits, aligning with facility policy.
A resident with muscle wasting, dementia, and heart failure experienced unintended weight loss, but the facility failed to complete a required nutrition assessment and did not implement the dietician's recommendations for supplements and weekly weights. Staff interviews revealed a lack of follow-through and unclear responsibility for ensuring dietary interventions were ordered and carried out.
A resident with diabetes did not receive insulin as prescribed on multiple occasions due to a lack of documentation by an LVN. The resident reported not receiving insulin during specific shifts, and the DON was unaware of the issue until it was brought to attention. This failure in documentation posed a risk of medication errors.
A medication cart was found unlocked and unattended, with keys on top, in a resident-accessible area. Charge Nurse A left the cart unsecured while assisting with food trays. The facility's policy requires all medication carts to be locked when unattended, a requirement confirmed by the Administrator and DON. This breach could allow unauthorized access to medications.
Failure to verify authority of resident representative
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to obtain documentation showing that Resident #13’s representative had been delegated the authority to exercise the resident’s rights, and it did not verify that any court-appointed representative had authority for the specific decision-making at issue. Resident #13 was admitted with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, altered mental status, legal blindness, malignant neoplasm of the larynx, dementia, and cognitive communication deficit. The record showed severe cognitive impairment, with a BIMS score of 02, and the care plan stated that he had impaired cognition, was at risk for further decline, and needed supervision and assistance with all decision making. The resident’s face sheet did not list any family members or resident representatives. A progress note stated that he was a new admit, was blind, required full care, and had no family member listed on the admission sheet. During observation, Resident #13 was lying in bed and did not respond to the surveyor’s questions. CNA staff stated they had never seen him have visitors and were not aware of any family members or resident representative. The social worker stated that the facility had not pursued guardianship, that care plan meetings were held in the resident’s room, and that the resident did not participate because he could not make decisions for himself. The DON stated that a resident who cannot communicate should have a guardian or representative to inform staff of the resident’s wishes and for proper care, and that if there is no family or representative, the facility must reach out to the physician to make sure the resident has a representative. The NP stated that Resident #13 could communicate immediate needs but not make decisions about care plans or activities, had no known family members or guardians, and that there were no orders designating anyone as guardian or representative. The facility’s Resident Rights policy stated that the resident has the right to have a legal representative.
Failure to Deliver Resident Mail Promptly
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents had the right to send and receive mail, and to receive letters, packages, and other materials delivered to the facility through means other than the postal service, for 6 confidential residents reviewed for communication privacy rights. During a confidential group interview, 6 of 9 members stated they never received mail, and 3 of 9 residents stated mail was not distributed at the facility on Saturdays because the Activity Director did not work on Saturdays. During interviews, the Activity Director stated she was responsible for delivering mail and that she passed residents' mail Monday through Friday, but was not present on weekends and was not sure whether any staff were assigned to pass mail on Saturdays. She also stated that when she arrived on Monday, mail was in her box to pass out. The Administrator stated her expectation was for mail to be passed on Saturday by weekend staff, and that there was not one specific person assigned to pass mail on the weekend, only nursing staff in general. Record review of the facility policy titled Resident Right to Privacy in Communication stated that mail or other materials should be delivered to the resident within 24 hours of delivery by the postal service, including a post office box, and outgoing mail should be delivered to the post office within 24 hours except when there is no regularly scheduled postal delivery and pick-up service.
Failure to Notify State LTC Ombudsman of Resident Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to send a copy of Resident #8’s discharge notice to the representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman before the resident was discharged. Resident #8’s nursing home discharge MDS assessment dated 04/13/2026 identified him as a [AGE]-year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE], with an active diagnosis of ischemic cardiomyopathy and a blank BIMS score. During interview, the Ombudsman stated she had never received a discharge notification from the facility and said the facility was required to submit discharge notification every time it did an involuntary discharge, transfer, or presented discharge paperwork to a resident related to discharge. The Social Worker stated she had no evidence of a report to the state Ombudsman for Resident #8’s discharge and was not aware she was supposed to send discharge notification monthly. The Administrator stated she was unaware of the rule to notify the state Ombudsman of any resident discharges. Record review of the facility’s Transfer and discharge policy stated that a copy of the notice shall be provided to the representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman and that the Social Services Director, or designee, shall provide notice of transfer via monthly list.
Failure to Coordinate PASRR Review for Resident With Mental Health Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to coordinate assessments with the PASRR program for one resident who had schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder. Record review showed the resident’s quarterly MDS assessment reflected severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 13, and the care plan documented behavior problems related to delusions, hallucinations, and false allegations toward others. The resident’s PASRR Level 1 screening dated 06/18/25 indicated she did not have a mental illness, even though the record also reflected mental illness diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety. During interview, the DON stated that if a resident received a new diagnosis, a new PASRR evaluation should be completed, and the Regional MDS Nurse stated the same. The Regional MDS Nurse reviewed the chart and stated the resident did not have a dementia diagnosis and had diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder, but the PASRR Level 1 was negative and did not reflect those mental health diagnoses. She stated she was unable to explain why a new PASRR Level 1 had not been completed when the new diagnoses were found. The ADM stated it was her expectation that the MDS Nurse ensure residents had a PASRR completed prior to admission and that if any resident received a new MI or developmental disability diagnosis while in the facility, the MDS Nurse was responsible for creating a PL1 to submit to the local authorities. Facility policy stated that if a resident had a qualifying MI or ID diagnosis and the nursing facility felt the resident should be positive, the referring entity should be contacted to correct the PL1 or complete the 1012, and that the facility must not accept admission from a hospital without a PL1.
Infection Control Lapse During Incontinence Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program for one resident reviewed for infection control. Resident #18 was a female admitted to the facility with diagnoses including end-stage renal failure and diabetes. Her quarterly MDS reflected a BIMS score of 13 and moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. Her care plan identified an ADL self-care performance deficit and required extensive assistance of two staff for toileting. During an observation of incontinence care, CNA A unfastened the resident’s brief, cleaned the vaginal area, and used the same soiled gloves to pick up trash bags, pulling one off and placing it on the bed. CNA A then placed the roll of trash bags in her pocket. After turning the resident to her left side, CNA A cleaned the buttocks and changed gloves but did not perform hand hygiene before placing a clean brief under the resident. In interview, CNA A stated she was supposed to perform hand hygiene when changing gloves and said she was trained to use hand sanitizer but forgot. She also stated she was not supposed to place clean trash bags in her pocket with soiled gloves and that failing to change soiled gloves and perform hand hygiene could cause infection. The DON stated staff were supposed to perform hand hygiene between glove changes and use clean gloves to place items in their pockets.
Failure to Implement Heel Offloading, Repositioning, and Skin Assessment Leading to Stage 4 Heel Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide necessary pressure ulcer prevention and treatment services, consistent with professional standards, for a severely cognitively impaired, bedbound resident who was always incontinent and fully dependent on staff for mobility and transfers. On admission from the hospital, the resident had no heel wounds but did have a history of skin issues on the buttocks and peri-area, and the hospital’s wound care documentation included a prevention plan directing that the heels be offloaded using heel protector boots or pillows. The resident’s care plan identified her as at risk for pressure ulcers, with goals to prevent breakdown and interventions such as frequent incontinence care, bathing per schedule, weekly skin checks, and nutritional support, but it did not include specific interventions for heel offloading or repositioning every two hours. The record shows that the facility did not consistently assess and monitor the resident’s skin condition as ordered. A Braden Scale assessment was completed once, rating the resident as low risk, and no further Braden assessments were found. Physician orders dated 12/31/2025 required head-to-toe skin assessments and documentation of any changes in skin integrity on specified days, with physician notification of changes, yet there was no evidence these assessments were performed on multiple ordered dates. The EHR contained no documented Skilled Observation Notes used as skin assessments for a prolonged period, and later Skilled Observation Notes uniformly described the skin as intact with no notable changes, despite the subsequent development of heel blisters and pressure injuries. The DON later acknowledged that skin assessments were not documented in the EHR and that only changes in skin integrity were recorded in progress notes. When blisters on both heels were identified on 02/09/2026, the nurse practitioner ordered daily skin prep to the bilateral heel blisters and offloading of both heels with heel protectors while in bed. However, the MAR/TAR showed multiple shifts where heel offloading was not documented as provided, and there were several days when the ordered skin prep was not documented as applied. CNAs reported that heel protectors were sometimes removed by nurses, that the resident sometimes refused them, and that bandages were often not changed over weekends. The wound care physician, who began seeing the resident after the heel wounds developed, noted that the resident was sometimes not wearing heel protectors and attributed the wound development to immobility and general decline. By 03/10/2026, the resident’s right heel remained an unstageable deep tissue injury and the left heel had progressed to a Stage 4 pressure wound. The facility’s own skin integrity policy required repositioning at-risk residents at least every two hours and use of pillows or wedges to keep bony prominences from direct contact, but the DON later confirmed that the resident’s care plan lacked interventions for heel offloading or repositioning, and there were no orders for an air pressure mattress.
Removal Plan
- DON/ADON conducted an audit of all current residents to identify those at risk for pressure injuries (limited mobility, dependence for repositioning, malnutrition, existing wounds, recent decline); screened all residents and identified at-risk residents.
- Completed updated skin assessments on all residents and filed them in the medical record under the document tab.
- Verified pressure-relieving devices for identified at-risk residents (physician order as required, care planned, and device in place).
- Reviewed treatment orders for all at-risk residents to ensure treatment orders exist for all identified skin issues; notify MD to obtain orders when missing.
- Reviewed nutritional status for all at-risk residents to ensure nutrition assessment completed; obtain MD orders as needed; update care plan; RD review.
- Reviewed and updated care plans for all at-risk residents to address skin concerns including wounds, treatment, pressure-relieving devices, repositioning, and nutrition.
- Revised and reinforced the process for timely risk identification on admission and with condition change using the 24-hour report; DON/MDS to review every admission and condition change to ensure conditions are identified and addressed.
- Implemented weekly skin assessments completed by charge nurse with ADON auditing after completion.
- Implemented physician notification process: charge nurse to notify physician of identified skin issues; DON to audit physician notification through progress notes.
- Implemented wound consultant follow-up process: ADON to round with wound physician; ADON to implement orders and new treatments.
- Implemented care plan revision process: charge nurse/ADON/MDS to revise care plan following required change; DON to audit care plan changes.
- Implemented heel offloading process for applicable residents: charge nurse/CNAs responsible for offloading heels while residents are in bed; ADON/DON to validate using a monitoring sheet; DON to develop and maintain a list of residents requiring heel offloading.
- Re-educated licensed nurses and CNAs with post-test on pressure injury risk recognition, repositioning and offloading techniques, immediate reporting of skin changes, and documentation of skin checks on skin observation sheets; administrator to track attendance and post-tests.
- Implemented ongoing monitoring and audits by DON/ADON of residents with current pressure injuries, residents at risk for skin breakdown, repositioning documentation, weekly skin assessments, wound treatment compliance, and care plan updates.
- Correct negative audit findings immediately, including staff counseling and re-education, resident reassessment, physician notification, and care plan revision as indicated.
- Report audit findings and trends to the QAPI Committee for ongoing review and additional action if needed.
- Notified the Medical Director of the IJ and discussed and obtained approval of the plan of removal.
Failure to Integrate Heel Off-Loading and Repositioning into Comprehensive Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes that reflected a resident’s identified needs for pressure injury prevention. The resident was an older female with multiple complex medical conditions, including malnutrition, COPD/asthma, toxic encephalopathy, alcohol dependence, muscle wasting and atrophy of the lower leg, cognitive communication deficit, and muscle weakness. A quarterly MDS showed severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 6, total dependence for transfers and mobility, and complete bowel and bladder incontinence. The resident either refused or was unable to perform basic mobility tasks such as sit-to-lying, lying-to-sitting, sit-to-stand, transfers, and walking, placing her at high risk for pressure injuries. The resident’s care plan, initiated for pressure ulcer risk, identified a focus of potential for development of a pressure ulcer with a goal that the resident would be free of preventable breakdown. Interventions listed included frequent checks for wetness and soiling, incontinence care every two hours as needed, scheduled bathing, and weekly skin checks with reporting of new skin conditions to the physician. However, the care plan did not include interventions for off-loading the heels or repositioning every two hours, despite the resident’s immobility and incontinence. The Braden Scale completed at admission rated the resident as low risk with a score of 16, and the facility’s documentation showed no skilled observation notes for skin assessments from early January through late February, and subsequent notes described the skin as intact with no notable changes. Hospital documentation in the facility’s EHR from before admission showed a prevention plan that specifically ordered heel off-loading using heel protector boots or pillows lengthwise. Later, a wound care physician’s evaluation documented that the resident developed unstageable deep tissue injuries (DTIs) on both heels, and a subsequent evaluation showed an unstageable DTI on the right heel and a Stage 4 pressure wound on the left heel. Interviews indicated that the family representative had not observed heel boots or pillows under the resident’s legs until after bandages were applied, and the NP reported that the resident had been admitted without pressure ulcers or DTIs, later developed heel blisters, and that orders for off-loading and heel boots were written. The DON and ADON acknowledged that repositioning was not reflected on the TAR/MAR, that heel riser boots had not yet been received, and that the care plan lacked interventions for off-loading heels and repositioning. These documented omissions and inconsistencies in care planning and implementation led to the identified deficiency under F656 for failure to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan.
Removal Plan
- DON/ADON conducted an audit of all current residents to determine which residents are at risk for pressure injuries (limited mobility, dependence on staff for repositioning, malnutrition, existing wounds, or recent decline).
- DON/ADON conducted an audit of residents identified as high-risk for skin breakdown (Braden scale score below 10) and reviewed residents with current wounds and significant change of condition to validate that comprehensive care plans addressed all issues with appropriate interventions and were updated as needed.
- For any resident identified with missing, incomplete, or outdated care plan interventions, the care plan was reviewed and revised immediately by the MDS Coordinator and DON.
- MDS nurse completed care plan updates for identified residents.
- DON/ADON re-educated licensed nurses, MDS staff, and interdisciplinary team members on requirements for comprehensive person-centered care planning, timely care plan revision after new wounds/condition changes, measurable objectives and individualized interventions, and communication of updated interventions to direct care staff via Kardex/POC system and documentation of care plan review/implementation.
- Implemented expectation that care plans are revised as soon as an issue is identified by the ADON responsible for wound care, with DON validating care plan revisions during morning meeting.
- Required that staff who did not attend the education will not work until education is completed; Administrator to track attendance and posttest completion.
- Established ongoing monitoring/audits by DON/ADON/MDS Coordinator for residents with new wounds, current pressure injuries, significant changes in condition, and identified skin risk factors to verify care plans are revised timely and interventions are individualized and implemented.
- Set audit schedule through QAPI as indicated.
- For any negative audit findings, correct immediately through care plan revision, staff re-education, and follow-up review.
- Bring audit results to the QAPI Committee for review, trend analysis, and additional corrective action as needed.
- Notified the Medical Director of the Immediate Jeopardy and discussed/obtained approval of the plan of removal.
Food Safety Deficiencies in Facility Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards for food service safety in its kitchen, as observed during a survey. Specific deficiencies included the failure to accurately label and date food items with their received or expiration dates, which is crucial for maintaining food safety. Additionally, dented cans were not stored in a separate area as required, and opened food items were not effectively sealed or resealed. These lapses in food storage and handling could potentially lead to food-borne illnesses and cross-contamination, posing a risk to residents. During the survey, it was observed that a box of cream of wheat was left open and exposed to air, and several bags of hot dog buns lacked use-by or expiration dates. A dented can of cream of chicken was also found improperly stored. Interviews with the dietary manager and another staff member confirmed that these practices were not in line with the facility's food storage policy, which mandates proper sealing, labeling, and storage of food items. The facility's policy and the U.S. FDA Food Code emphasize the importance of these practices to prevent contamination and ensure food safety.
Failure to Reposition Residents Leads to Pressure Ulcer Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate pressure ulcer care and prevention for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #10, an elderly female with severe cognitive impairment and a history of pressure ulcers, was not repositioned every two hours as per physician orders. Observations over several days showed that she remained in the same position without the use of pillows or wedges for repositioning, despite her care plan indicating the need for frequent repositioning to prevent skin breakdown. A new wound was noted on her coccyx, indicating a lapse in care. Similarly, Resident #32, who also had severe cognitive impairment and a stage 4 pressure ulcer, was not repositioned every two hours as required by her care plan. Observations revealed that she was consistently found lying flat on her back, with wedges not properly utilized for repositioning. Despite recommendations to reposition her every one to two hours, the facility failed to adhere to these guidelines, potentially contributing to the chronic nature of her wound. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and RNs, highlighted inconsistencies in the repositioning practices and a lack of clarity on the frequency of repositioning for these residents. The facility's policy on skin management was not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the lack of a specific repositioning policy and the failure to prevent new skin alterations. The DON and ADON acknowledged the need for regular repositioning but did not ensure compliance with the care plans, leading to the observed deficiencies.
Failure to Act on Pharmacist Recommendations for Drug Regimen Review
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that drug regimen irregularities reported by the Pharmacist Consultant were acted upon for two residents. Specifically, the recommendations for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) of certain medications for these residents were not addressed by the attending physician. For Resident #19, the Pharmacist Consultant recommended a GDR for Citalopram and Quetiapine, but there was no documented physician rationale for continuing these medications without a dose reduction. Similarly, for Resident #9, recommendations for a GDR of Risperidone and Divalproex were made, but again, there was no documented physician rationale for not implementing the dose reductions. Resident #19, a male with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, schizoaffective disorder, and dysphagia, was noted to have intact cognition with a BIMS score of 14. Despite receiving antipsychotic and antidepressant medications, there were no behavioral symptoms exhibited. The care plan for Resident #19 included monitoring for side effects and providing positive reinforcement, but the lack of physician response to the pharmacist's recommendations left the medication regimen unchanged without documented justification. Resident #9, also a male with schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. He was receiving antipsychotic medications without exhibiting behavioral symptoms. The care plan aimed to maintain the resident's functional abilities and reduce psychoactive medication use, yet the pharmacist's recommendations for dose reductions were not addressed by the physician. Interviews with facility staff and the physician revealed a lack of clarity and documentation regarding the process for handling pharmacist recommendations, contributing to the oversight.
Medication Labeling and Storage Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, specifically concerning the 200 hall medication cart. During an observation and interview, it was found that two insulin pens, an Aspart insulin syringe and a Tresiba insulin pen, lacked open dates, although the seals were missing, indicating they had been opened. Additionally, two other insulin pens, a Lyumjev and an Admelog, were found to have been opened 46 days prior, exceeding the recommended 28-day usage period. RN D incorrectly stated that the long-acting insulins were good until the manufacturer's expiration date, and there was no risk to residents, despite the lack of open dates and extended usage. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that all insulins, including long-acting ones, require an open date and should be discarded after 28 days to ensure effectiveness. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) also stated that insulin must have an open date and be discarded after 28 days, as undated insulin cannot be used. The facility's policy mandates that all medications be stored, dated, and labeled according to the manufacturer's recommendations, and medication carts are to be routinely inspected for outdated or improperly labeled medications. The failure to adhere to these guidelines could potentially compromise the therapeutic effects of the medications administered to residents.
Failure to Complete Nutrition Assessment and Implement Dietary Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to ensure a resident maintained acceptable nutritional status by not completing a required annual comprehensive nutritional assessment or a nutrition assessment after an identified weight loss. The last comprehensive nutritional assessment for the resident was completed over a year prior, and despite documentation of unintended weight loss by the dietician, no follow-up assessment was performed as required by facility policy. Additionally, the facility did not implement dietary recommendations made by the dietician, which included initiating a magic cup supplement and obtaining weekly weights for four weeks. There were no physician orders entered for these interventions after the recommendations were made, and weight records showed that weekly weights were not consistently obtained. The care plan indicated that supplements should be provided as ordered, but this was not carried out. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of clarity and follow-through regarding responsibility for implementing dietary recommendations and ensuring assessments were completed. The dietician reported sending recommendations to the DON, ADON, and dietary manager, but these were not acted upon. The DON and ADON acknowledged their roles in entering orders and monitoring compliance but did not ensure the recommended interventions were implemented for the resident.
Failure to Document and Administer Insulin
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of a resident, specifically in the administration and documentation of insulin. The resident, a cognitively intact female with type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, did not receive her prescribed insulin on three occasions. The medication administration record (MAR) for August 2024 showed no documentation of insulin administration or blood sugar checks on these dates. The resident reported that she did not receive her insulin during the night shifts covered by a specific LVN, although she was unaware of any adverse effects from the missed doses. The Director of Nursing (DON) was unaware of the documentation lapses until informed. Upon inquiry, the LVN claimed to have administered the insulin but failed to document it. This lack of documentation posed a risk of another nurse administering an extra dose, potentially leading to medical complications. The facility's failure to ensure proper documentation and administration of medication could compromise the therapeutic dosages ordered by the physician.
Medication Cart Security Breach
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments, as required by their policy. On 05/24/24, Medication Cart #1 was observed unlocked and unattended with the keys left on top of the cart. This cart was positioned facing the entrance of a resident's room, and residents were present in the room at the time. Charge Nurse A, who was responsible for the cart, was not present as he had left to assist with food trays. Upon returning approximately five minutes later, Charge Nurse A acknowledged the oversight and expressed regret for leaving the cart unsecured. Interviews conducted with the facility's Administrator and Director of Nursing B confirmed that it is a requirement for medication carts to be locked at all times when unattended. Both acknowledged the risk associated with leaving the cart unlocked, as it could allow unauthorized access to medications. A review of the facility's policy on medication storage, dated 1/20/21, reiterated that all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments and only authorized personnel should have access to the keys. The policy also specifies that during medication passes, medications must be either under direct observation or locked in the storage area or cart.
Latest citations in Texas
Surveyors found that kitchen staff failed to follow facility policy and professional standards for food storage, leaving dry items such as spaghetti noodles, garlic powder, and salt unsealed, and refrigerated items such as a prepared drink, salad, and turkey lunch meat uncovered or undated. The DM and ADM both stated that all food should be sealed, labeled, and dated, that all staff are responsible for these tasks, and that staff had been trained, but observations showed food in both dry and refrigerated storage was not properly sealed or dated as required by the facility’s food receiving and storage policy.
The facility failed to enforce its smoking policy and safe smoking assessments for three residents who used tobacco. One resident with mild cognitive impairment and two residents without cognitive impairment were assessed as smokers who required the facility to store their cigarettes and lighters, yet they reported keeping these items in their rooms, and surveyors observed cigarettes and lighters in bedside furniture. An LVN and the housekeeping supervisor stated that all smoking was to be supervised and that supplies were to be kept at the nurse’s station, and the DON and ADM confirmed that residents were not supposed to keep smoking articles in their rooms. However, residents reported they had not been told they could not keep smoking supplies in their rooms, and the facility’s written policy stated residents may not have or keep smoking articles except under direct supervision.
A resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment, limited lower extremity range of motion, and a need for assistance with ADLs was twice observed lying in bed without an accessible call light, which was either hanging under the head of the bed or tucked between the mattress and bedframe. An LVN confirmed the resident could use the call light if available, and a CNA, another LVN, the DON, and the ADM all stated that call lights should always be within reach, that all staff are responsible for ensuring access, and that they were unaware this resident’s call light was not in reach. This was inconsistent with the facility’s policy requiring each resident to have a means to call staff directly for assistance from the bed and other areas.
A resident reported that bedroom hand sinks did not provide warm water, requiring handwashing with cold water and causing discomfort. Surveyors observed that in two rooms, the hot water remained cold despite running for several minutes, and thermometer readings at shared hand sinks showed temperatures in the 70°F range on the hot side, below the facility’s stated 100–110°F expectation. Further observation with the MD revealed that in one room the hot and cold valves were transposed, with hot water only available from the cold side. The MD, ADM, and DON each stated the MD was responsible for monitoring and maintaining water temperatures, but none were aware of recent issues, and the DON did not know the required temperature range. The facility’s maintenance request policy was requested twice but was not provided.
A resident with documented Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), including recurrent severe and mild forms, was identified in multiple records such as the face sheet, MDS, care plan, physician orders, and diagnosis report, and was receiving Cymbalta for MDD. However, the resident’s PASRR Level I screening indicated no mental illness. The ADM stated the MDS nurse was responsible for PASRR accuracy and updates when mental illness diagnoses were made, and acknowledged the resident’s active MDD should have been reflected on the PASRR, but he was unaware of the inaccuracy. This resulted in an inaccurate and non-updated PASRR Level I for a resident with a mental illness diagnosis.
Two residents’ care plans were not accurately updated to reflect their assessed needs and physician orders. One resident with dementia, diabetes, and malnutrition had an active MD order and meal tickets for a large-portion, double-portion diet and was observed receiving double portions at meals, yet the care plan continued to list only a regular diet with thin liquids and did not specify the ordered double portions. Another resident with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder had a positive PASRR Level 1 for mental illness and a completed PASRR Level 2 evaluation, but the care plan, while listing the psychiatric diagnoses, contained no focus areas addressing the PASRR findings or related services. The ADM and DON acknowledged that care plans should have been updated to reflect these orders and PASRR results and were unaware that this had not occurred.
A resident with severe dementia, psychiatric comorbidities, and protein-calorie malnutrition had a physician order for weekly weights, but the facility failed to consistently obtain and document these weights over several months. Although the resident appeared adequately nourished and was observed eating most of a meal, multiple ordered weekly weights were missing from the treatment records. Facility leadership, including the DON and ADON, were unaware that the weekly weight order had not been followed, despite policies requiring adherence to physician orders and documentation of weights in the EHR.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and COPD, receiving oxygen therapy via nasal cannula, was observed twice with the cannula lying on the floor beside the bed instead of stored in the bag on the oxygen concentrator as required. A CNA later picked up the cannula from the floor, wiped it with a non-disinfectant incontinent wipe, and reapplied it to the resident, despite having been trained that a cannula found on the floor should be replaced. An LVN, the DON, and the Administrator all confirmed that oxygen cannulas must be stored properly, replaced if found on the floor, and that incontinent wipes are not disinfectants, indicating a failure to follow the facility’s infection prevention and control policy.
Surveyors found loose pills in drawers on two medication carts, indicating medications were not stored in their original packaging or assigned resident-specific areas as required by facility policy. On one cart, two loose tablets later identified as Carbidopa-Levodopa and Zofran were discovered with a medication aide who stated she was responsible for checking the cart at the start of her shift. On the second cart, four loose tablets identified as Allopurinol, Metoprolol, Lasix, and Amlodipine were found with another medication aide, who also reported routinely checking the cart for cleanliness and loose medications. The DON and ADM both reported they were unaware of the loose medications and stated that medication aides, nurses, and charge nurses were responsible for proper medication storage, monitored through administrative and pharmacy cart audits.
A resident with CHF, COPD, morbid obesity, chronic wounds, and total bowel/bladder incontinence was discharged home by stretcher despite being a mechanical-lift resident who could not walk or toilet independently. Home health was not in place, the family reported difficulty reaching SW, and the resident was discharged without an AMA notice or Ombudsman notice. She soiled herself at home, could not clean up, and was hospitalized shortly after for CHF exacerbation and fluid overload.
Improper Sealing, Dating, and Storage of Dry and Refrigerated Foods
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s food storage and handling practices in the kitchen, based on observations, interviews, and record review. During a kitchen tour, they observed multiple instances of improperly stored food in dry storage and refrigerated areas. In dry storage, spaghetti noodles were kept in an unsealed zip lock bag, garlic powder was stored with its lid open, and salt was stored with its spout open. In refrigerated storage, a prepared drink was placed on a metal sheet pan without a cover, a plate of salad had no date, and a package of turkey breast lunch meat was undated and not sealed. In interviews, the Dietary Manager (DM) stated that all food in the refrigerator should be sealed and dated, and all dry storage food should be sealed and closed, explaining that sealing stored food keeps it fresh and prevents contaminants from entering. The DM also stated that all staff were responsible for dating and sealing stored food and that all staff had been trained in food storage. The Administrator (ADM) reported he was not aware that food was not properly stored, and stated that dating and sealing stored food was to maintain sanitary conditions, with everyone responsible for this task and all staff trained in food storage. Review of the facility’s “Food Receiving and Storage” policy, revised November 2022, showed that dry foods stored in bins must be removed from original packaging, labeled, and dated with a use-by date, and that all refrigerated and frozen foods must be covered, labeled, dated, and monitored so they are used, frozen, or discarded by their use-by date.
Failure to Enforce Smoking Policy and Control Resident Smoking Supplies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its established smoking policy for three residents who used tobacco. Record review showed that one resident with hepatic encephalopathy, anxiety, depression, and hypertension had an annual MDS indicating tobacco use and a BIMS score of 09 (mild cognitive impairment), but there was no smoking care plan in her care plan report. Her safe smoking assessment indicated she required the facility to store her lighter and cigarettes and that she was safe to smoke without supervision. Two other residents, one with heart failure, diabetes, anxiety, and hypertension, and another with a history of cerebral infarction, depression, and hypertension, had MDS assessments indicating tobacco use and BIMS scores of 14 and 13 respectively (no cognitive impairment). Their care plans identified them as smokers, and their safe smoking assessments also indicated the facility should store their lighters and cigarettes and that they were safe to smoke without supervision. Staff interviews and observations revealed inconsistencies between the facility’s smoking policy and actual practice. An LVN stated that all resident smoking was to be supervised, that smoking supplies were kept in a box at the nurse’s station, and that staff supervised residents according to a smoking schedule, with the housekeeping supervisor assigned to supervise at a specific time. Observation confirmed the housekeeping supervisor was outside observing residents while they smoked. The housekeeping supervisor reported she was scheduled to supervise smoking, that all residents had their own cigarettes and lighters, and that she did not hand out smoking supplies, believing residents obtained them from the nurse’s station. Both the LVN and housekeeping supervisor stated they had been trained on the facility’s smoking policy. Resident interviews and room observations showed that residents were keeping smoking supplies in their rooms despite the policy and safe smoking assessments requiring facility storage. One resident reported keeping cigarettes in his nightstand and a lighter in his pants pocket and stated he had not been told he could not keep smoking supplies in his room. Another resident stated he kept cigarettes and a lighter in his nightstand, and the surveyor observed cigarettes and a lighter in the top drawer of the nightstand; he also stated he had not been told he could not keep supplies in his room. A third resident stated she kept her cigarettes and lighter in her room and that if you gave the nurses your cigarettes and lighter they would take them; she did not remember being told she could not have supplies in her room. The DON and ADM both stated that the policy required all residents to be supervised while smoking and that smoking supplies were to be kept at the nurse’s station, and they were not aware that residents had smoking supplies in their rooms. The written smoking policy stated that residents may not have or keep any smoking articles except when under direct supervision.
Failure to Ensure Call Light Accessibility for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s call light was within reach, as required by facility policy and staff training. An elderly female resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 03), limited range of motion in both lower extremities, and a need for partial/moderate assistance with ADLs was observed on two separate occasions without accessible call light access. On one observation, the resident was lying in bed with the call light hanging on the bed frame under the head of the bed; on another, the call light was tucked between the mattress and bedframe at the head of the bed, making it unavailable for use. Multiple staff interviews confirmed that the call light should always be within reach of residents and that there was no reason this resident should not have had access to it. An LVN stated the resident was able to use the call light if it was available and that it should always be in reach. A CNA, another LVN, the DON, and the ADM each stated that the purpose of the call light was for residents to call for assistance, that all staff had been trained on call light placement, and that all staff were responsible for ensuring residents had access to the call light. None of them were aware that this resident’s call light was not within reach. The facility’s written policy on the resident call system stated that each resident is to be provided with a means to call staff directly for assistance from the bed and toileting/bathing areas, which was not followed in this case.
Failure to Maintain Adequate Hot Water Temperatures at Resident Hand Sinks
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents had access to safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable handwashing facilities in their rooms. A resident reported that there was no warm water in the hand sinks in residents’ bedrooms and that they often had to wash their hands with cold water, which made their hands feel cold. The resident also stated they felt the facility did not take the cold water issues seriously and expressed a desire to have warm water available to wash their hands and face. Surveyor observations confirmed that the hot water in two resident rooms remained cold even after running the water for several minutes. Subsequent temperature checks with a thermometer at the shared hand sinks in these rooms showed water temperatures of 73.6°F and 70.5°F on the hot water side, which were below the facility’s stated expected range of 100–110°F for resident room sinks. During a later observation with the Maintenance Director (MD), the hot water at one shared hand sink again measured 70°F on the hot side, and when the cold side was turned on, the water became warm, with a measured temperature of 100°F, indicating the hot and cold valves had been transposed after a plumbing repair. In interviews, the MD stated he was responsible for ensuring adequate water temperatures and that he conducted weekly spot checks of shared hand sinks, maintaining temperature logs, but he was not aware of any recent issues or reports regarding water temperatures. The Administrator (ADM) confirmed that the MD was responsible for water temperatures and that the expected range was 100–110°F, and acknowledged that a recent toilet repair in one of the rooms could have resulted in the hot and cold valves being transposed. The DON stated the MD was responsible for regular water temperature checks and repairs, was not aware of any concerns about hot water temperatures, and was unsure of the required temperature range. When the facility’s maintenance request policy was requested from the ADM on two occasions, it was not provided.
Failure to Maintain Accurate PASRR Level I for Resident With Mental Illness
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an accurate and updated PASRR Level I assessment for a resident with a diagnosed mental illness. The resident, a female with hemiplegia following a cerebral infarction, had documented diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), recurrent, severe without psychotic features, and MDD, recurrent, mild, as reflected on her electronic face sheet, MDS, care plan, physician orders, and diagnosis report. Her Annual MDS identified active psychotic/mood disorders of anxiety and depression, and her care plan and physician orders both documented active MDD diagnoses and treatment with Cymbalta (duloxetine) for MDD. The diagnosis report showed onset dates for MDD recurrent severe without psychotic features and MDD recurrent mild well before the survey. Despite these documented mental health diagnoses, the resident’s PASRR Level I screening dated 07/28/2024 indicated "NO" for both primary diagnosis of dementia and mental illness. During an interview, the Administrator stated that the MDS nurse was responsible for ensuring PASRR Level I screenings were accurate upon admission and for requesting updates when new mental illness diagnoses were made, and acknowledged that the resident did have an active MDD diagnosis that should have been reflected as a mental illness on the PASRR. The Administrator reported he was unaware that the PASRR Level I was inaccurate and noted that PASRR screenings were supposed to be reviewed during the admission process and updated with any changes. The report states that this failure could place residents with inaccurate PASRR Level I screenings and no PASRR Level II evaluation at risk for not receiving needed care and services.
Failure to Maintain Accurate Care Plans for Dietary and PASRR-Related Needs
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s development and implementation of comprehensive, person-centered care plans with measurable objectives and timeframes for residents’ identified needs. For one male resident with dementia, type 2 diabetes, malnutrition, and vitamin deficiency, the admission MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment and independence in eating, with no diet restrictions or weight loss documented in Section K. His care plan included focus areas for diabetes management and potential nutritional problems, with goals to avoid complications related to diabetes and malnutrition and to maintain weight. Interventions listed included dietary consults, monitoring meal intake percentages, providing a regular diet with thin liquids, monitoring for signs and symptoms of malnutrition, and having the RD evaluate and recommend diet changes as needed. Record review showed that this resident had an active physician order for a “Large Portions diet Regular texture, Regular consistency, Double Portions” starting in early February, and his weights increased from 132 lbs to 158 lbs over several months. His lunch meal ticket reflected a regular diet with double portions, and observations confirmed he was receiving double portions at meals, sometimes requesting additional items such as a salad when still hungry. However, the resident’s care plan did not reflect the physician’s order for large/double portions; it continued to reference a regular diet and thin liquids without specifying the ordered double portions. During interviews, the resident reported he sometimes asked for more food because he was hungry but was able to get second portions and felt full after meals. The ADM and DON both stated that the MDS nurse was responsible for updating care plans when diet orders changed, acknowledged that the care plan should have reflected the double-portion order, and were unaware that it had not been updated. For a female resident with hypertensive emergency, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, the annual MDS documented moderate cognitive impairment and active diagnoses of anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Her active physician orders also listed schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. PASRR Level 1 screening indicated no primary diagnosis of dementia and a positive finding for mental illness, and a PASRR Level 2 evaluation had been completed, documenting that she was not interested in enrollment in a community-based program. Despite these PASRR findings and active mental health diagnoses, the resident’s current care plan, while listing schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder as active diagnoses, contained no focus areas addressing the PASRR Level 1 screening or the PASRR Level 2 evaluation. In interviews, the ADM and DON both stated that the resident’s positive PASRR findings should have been reflected in the care plan and did not know why they were not. The facility’s policy on interdisciplinary care planning stated that resident care plans are to be developed according to the timeframes and criteria established by §483.21, but the care plans for these two residents were not accurate, consistent, or complete with respect to their dietary and PASRR-related needs.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Weekly Weights
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to obtain and document weekly weights as ordered by the physician for one resident with significant nutritional risk factors. The resident was an elderly female with severe dementia with agitation, depression, schizoaffective disorder–bipolar type, and protein-calorie malnutrition. Her Quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 0, indicating severe cognitive impairment, and documented a weight of 120 pounds. A physician order dated 05/14/26 directed that weekly weights be obtained every Wednesday starting 01/21/26. Record review showed that, despite this standing order, multiple weekly weights were not obtained or recorded over several months. The Treatment Administration Records from 01/01/26 through 05/13/26 reflected missing weekly weight assessments on at least six ordered dates: 01/28/26, 02/11/26, 03/11/26, 03/25/26, 04/08/26, and 04/22/26. Progress notes documented weights on some dates (01/19/26, 01/21/26, 02/23/26, and 03/18/26), but these did not fulfill the requirement for consistent weekly weights as ordered. The facility’s own policy on Physician Orders stated that such orders are essential for comprehensive care, and the Weight Assessment and Intervention policy required that weights be recorded in the electronic health record. During observations, the resident appeared well-groomed, did not appear underweight or emaciated, and was seen consuming approximately 75% of a meal with staff assistance. However, interviews with the DON, ADON, and Administrator confirmed that they were not aware that the weekly weight orders had not been consistently followed for this resident. The ADON reported that the resident had significant cognitive impairment and often refused to be weighed, but there was no documentation in the report that these refusals were linked to the missed ordered weight dates or that alternative measures were taken to comply with the physician’s order. The deficiency centers on the facility’s failure to follow the physician’s weekly weight order and to ensure weights were consistently obtained and recorded in accordance with professional standards, the care plan, and facility policy.
Improper Handling and Storage of Oxygen Nasal Cannula
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its infection prevention and control program related to oxygen therapy equipment for one resident. The resident was an elderly female with dementia, COPD, depression, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, who had a comprehensive MDS indicating severe cognitive impairment and use of oxygen therapy. Her care plan identified risk for respiratory infections/distress related to COPD with an intervention to administer oxygen as ordered, and physician orders directed oxygen at 2–3 liters via nasal cannula to maintain oxygen saturation above 90% as needed for shortness of breath. On two separate observations, the resident’s nasal cannula was seen lying on the floor beside the bed instead of being stored in the bag on the oxygen concentrator when not in use, as required by facility practice. During interviews, an LVN, a CNA, the DON, and the Administrator all stated that oxygen nasal cannulas should be stored in a bag on the oxygen concentrator when not in use and that if a cannula is found on the floor it should be replaced. The CNA reported that she was unaware the tubing was on the floor until she entered the room to assist with the noon meal, then picked up the nasal cannula, wiped it with an incontinent wipe that did not contain disinfectant, and placed it back on the resident. She acknowledged she had been trained on oxygen tubing storage and should have replaced the cannula. The LVN, DON, and Administrator confirmed that incontinent wipes are for skin use and are not disinfectant wipes, and that staff had been trained on oxygen use and storage. The facility’s Infection Prevention and Control Program policy stated that the program is to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, including instituting measures to avoid complications or dissemination, which was not followed in this instance.
Loose Medications Found on Two Medication Carts
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that drugs and biologicals were stored properly on two medication carts. During an observation of the Station 1 medication cart with a medication aide, surveyors found two loose pills in a drawer. The medication aide acknowledged that the cart should not contain loose pills and stated she was responsible for the cart once she received the keys, usually checking it at the beginning of her shift for loose or expired medications and cleaning it prior to medication pass. The Director of Nursing (DON) later identified the loose pills as Carbidopa-Levodopa 25-100 and Zofran 4 mg. The facility’s policy on Medication Labeling and Storage, revised February 2023, states that medications and biologicals are to be stored in the packaging or dispensing systems in which they are received, and that medications are to be stored in an orderly manner with each resident’s medications assigned to an individual cubicle or drawer to prevent mixing. A similar issue was identified on the Station 2 medication cart, where four loose pills were found in the drawers during an observation with another medication aide. The DON identified these pills as Allopurinol 100 mg, Metoprolol 25 mg, Lasix 20 mg, and Amlodipine 5 mg. The second medication aide also stated that the cart should not contain loose pills and that she was responsible for checking the cart for cleanliness and loose medications at the beginning of each shift. In interviews, the DON and the Administrator both stated they were not aware that there were loose medications on the carts, and each indicated that medication aides and nurses or the charge nurse were responsible for proper storage of medications on the carts. Both referenced that nursing administration and the pharmacy consultant conducted periodic or monthly cart audits, and the DON and Administrator described potential negative outcomes such as residents missing medications or inventory control issues. These findings demonstrate that medications were not consistently stored in accordance with the facility’s policy and accepted professional principles.
Unsafe discharge without needed supports
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation for the discharge of a resident with significant functional and medical needs. The resident had diagnoses including acute on chronic diastolic CHF, acute pulmonary edema, obesity, COPD, chronic lower-leg ulcer, and bowel and bladder incontinence. Her admission assessment showed a BIMS score of 15, but her functional status was highly limited: bed mobility required dependent to maximal assistance, transfers were not attempted due to medical/safety concerns, walking 10 feet was not attempted, and she was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Therapy documentation identified her as a mechanical lift resident, and progress notes described persistent debility, high fall risk, and ongoing counseling about unsafe home discharge. Despite these limitations, the resident was discharged home by stretcher with no home health services in place. The discharge summary listed home care and durable medical equipment, including a wheelchair, hospital bed, and 3-in-1 commode, but the home health agency later reported that the referral was declined because of insurance denial. Facility staff and the resident’s family reported that the resident could not walk and could not get to the bathroom by herself. The resident’s family also reported difficulty reaching social services and stated they did not know who would care for her at home. The resident was discharged without an AMA discharge notice and without notice to the Ombudsman, despite facility policy describing requirements for facility-initiated discharge and resident notification. After discharge, the resident arrived home by EMS on a stretcher and was unable to ambulate. Within less than 24 hours, she urinated and defecated on herself and was unable to change her clothing or clean her body. She was then hospitalized for CHF exacerbation and fluid overload. Interviews with facility staff showed conflicting accounts about the discharge process, the availability of home health, and whether the discharge was safe. The attending MD stated she did not recommend the resident go home and recommended long-term care, while other staff stated the resident wanted to go home and that the discharge was insurance driven.
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.
