Citations in Maine
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Maine.
Statistics for Maine (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Compliance trends in Maine
Data through Mar 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 against the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Latest Citations in Maine
The facility failed to follow physician orders for medications and treatments for multiple residents. One resident did not receive a scheduled IM antibiotic dose as ordered. Another resident with constipation and diarrhea had PRN Loperamide and scheduled Sennosides administered inconsistently with bowel-related orders, and an ordered oral antibiotic was delayed for many days after it was received from the pharmacy, without documented timely provider follow-up. A resident with complaints of SOB did not receive a PRN nebulizer treatment despite an active order. During a med pass, a CNA-M gave a resident 14 pills to swallow at once, contrary to an order requiring meds to be given whole with water, one at a time, in an upright position.
Two residents experienced deficiencies in clinical record documentation when multiple active physician orders for medications, treatments, monitoring, positioning, and meal-related care were not documented as completed on the MAR/TAR, and when a provider progress note contained outdated wound care and foley catheter information that did not match current orders. The DON confirmed that the records lacked evidence of completion for ordered interventions and that the provider note did not accurately reflect the resident’s current wound care regimen.
The facility failed to develop and maintain complete, accurate care plans for two residents. One resident with a diagnosis of dementia did not have a comprehensive dementia care plan in place, as confirmed by record review and the Regional Director of Clinical Operations. Another resident with repeated falls and gait/mobility abnormalities, who had sustained an unwitnessed fall resulting in multiple fractures, lacked documented fall-related goals and interventions and had a care plan that inaccurately listed toileting as independent and did not include the toileting schedule described in the facility’s follow-up report; the DNS confirmed that the fall care plan had been resolved despite these ongoing needs.
A resident experienced lethargy, AMS, abnormal VS, and hypoxia with a history of urosepsis. Nursing staff contacted the on‑call provider, obtained orders for STAT labs, oral antibiotics, IV NS, and neuro checks, and applied supplemental O2. After this, the resident was unable to swallow the antibiotic, staff could not start the IV due to lack of supplies, and STAT labs were delayed until the next lab day. The resident’s temperature later increased and the POA requested transfer, leading to EMS transport to the ED for AMS, abnormal VS, and increased weakness. The record contained no evidence that the provider was notified of these subsequent changes in condition or of the inability to carry out ordered treatments, and the Administrator confirmed the physician was not notified.
A resident with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia with psychosis, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS 8/15), history of falls, and documented confusion and hallucinations was placed in a room directly across from an unsecured exit door, despite staff concerns and family reports of wandering-type behaviors. The resident was assessed as zero risk for elopement, and no elopement policy or Roam Alert was implemented even after earlier wandering and a stairwell incident. Video showed the resident repeatedly wandering the hall, exiting through the unsecured door once and returning unnoticed, then exiting again without staff awareness, passing through to a locked courtyard where reentry was not possible. Staff later discovered the resident missing and found the resident face down on snow-covered ground in the courtyard, inadequately dressed for the cold, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy determination for failure to prevent avoidable accidents and environmental hazards.
A resident left their room, exited through an exit door, and was later found outside on facility grounds lying on the grass, after previously being observed in a stairwell and returned to their room while remaining restless. Facility documentation and a SERCA confirmed staff did not re‑evaluate the resident when behaviors changed, did not implement a Roam Alert after the first wandering incident, and had no elopement policy in place. The Administrator and DON acknowledged they knew of the incident when it occurred but did not notify the State agency or submit a 5‑day follow‑up report, as they treated the event as a fall rather than an elopement because the resident was found on facility property.
Housekeeping and maintenance services were not adequately provided in multiple resident areas and the laundry room. Surveyors observed food particles and debris on sit-to-stand lifts, commode buckets and a wash basin left on bathroom floors, ripped or torn floor mats and shower threshold strips, broken and disrepair conditions, chipped and missing paint, dried feces and urine on and under a toilet and seat riser, taped-over holes in a shower wall, and untreated wooden pallets in the clean laundry area. The ADON/housekeeping and maintenance leadership confirmed the findings.
Failure to Report Multiple Abuse Allegations: A resident with Alzheimer's disease and dementia had repeated incidents of aggression toward other residents, CNAs, and a visitor, including slapping, grabbing, pulling, verbal abuse, and attempting to swing a chair. The record and DLC portal review showed no evidence these abuse allegations were reported to the state agency, and the Administrator confirmed the incidents were not reported.
Incomplete Transfer/Discharge and Bed-Hold Notices: The facility failed to provide written transfer/discharge and bed-hold notices to resident representatives for multiple residents who were transferred to acute care. The notices reviewed were missing required appeal information, including contact details for the appeal entity and the State LTC Ombudsman, and lacked instructions for obtaining and completing an appeal form. Staff stated that transfer/discharge and bed-hold notices are not sent to resident representatives and that the bed-hold notice does not include appeal rights or contact numbers.
A resident’s baseline care plan was not developed and implemented within 48 hours of admission with the instructions needed to provide minimum healthcare information for care. The record showed repeated aggression toward staff, other residents, and a visitor, along with wandering, agitation, destructive behavior, and combative episodes during care, but the care plan lacked goals and interventions for these behaviors. The DON confirmed the care plan did not address the concerns.
Failure to Follow Physician Medication and Treatment Orders
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves multiple failures by facility staff to follow physician orders for medications and treatments for several residents. One resident had a physician order dated 4/23/26 for Ceftriaxone Sodium 1 gram IM daily for 5 days for a urinary tract infection. Review of the Treatment Administration Record showed the antibiotic was administered on 4/23, 4/24, 4/26, and 4/27, with no evidence of administration on 4/25. The DON confirmed that the ordered dose on 4/25 was not given. Another resident with ongoing issues of constipation and diarrhea had active orders for Loperamide 2 mg PO PRN after loose stool, with one repeat dose allowed, and Sennosides 8.6 mg, 2 tablets PO twice daily for constipation, to be held for loose stools in the last 24 hours. Review of the bowel elimination history and MAR showed repeated instances where Loperamide was given when there was no bowel movement or when bowel movements were normal, and not given after documented loose/diarrhea stools as ordered. Sennosides was administered within 24 hours of loose stools, contrary to the order to hold it under those circumstances. Additionally, this resident had an antibiotic received from the pharmacy on 3/21/26 with a faxed order on 4/1/26 indicating it should be taken every 8 hours for 7 days following a 3/18/26 office visit; however, the MAR showed the first dose was not given until 4/1/26, 12 days after the antibiotic was received from the pharmacy, and the record lacked evidence of timely follow-up with the urologist regarding the antibiotic and progress note. A further deficiency was identified when a resident with a provider response indicating an existing PRN nebulizer order for shortness of breath had no documented PRN nebulizer treatment administered on the date the nurse requested nebulizer treatments for complaints of shortness of breath, despite the active order. In another case, during a medication pass observation, a CNA-M handed a resident a cup containing 14 pills, which the resident placed in the mouth and swallowed all at once with water. This was inconsistent with a physician order dated 4/9/26 specifying that medications were to be given whole with water, one at a time, with the resident in an upright position. The CNA-M later confirmed that the medications had been given all at once rather than one at a time as ordered.
Incomplete and Inaccurate Clinical Records for Medication, Treatment, and Wound Care Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurate clinical records for a resident when multiple active physician orders were not documented as completed on the MAR and TAR for the month of April. For one resident, there was no evidence of documentation for ordered interventions including daily lavage of the left ear with warm water, application of Triad cream to a left buttocks stage 2 area, monitoring for signs and symptoms of respiratory infection/COVID every day and night, use of an air mattress on the bed every shift, documentation of shortness of breath, encouragement of off-loading of the right hip, maintaining the head of bed (HOB) elevated greater than 30 degrees every shift, monitoring for difficulty swallowing food or medications, keeping the HOB upright for one hour after meals, use of a right side half bedrail as an enabler for bed mobility, nurse education that supervision with meals was medically recommended, and being out of bed in a wheelchair for all meals. The DON confirmed that the MAR and TAR lacked evidence of completed documentation for these physician orders. The facility also failed to ensure that a resident’s clinical record contained accurate information regarding wound care. A physician progress note documented that the resident had a stage 2 upper medial posterior thigh pressure ulcer with interval improvement and directed continuation of calcium alginate and island dressing changes and continuation of a foley catheter for moisture management. However, the clinical record showed that the calcium alginate/foam/Tegaderm wound care order had been discontinued earlier and replaced with an order for Triad hydrophilic wound dressing paste, and that the resident’s foley catheter had been removed during a recent hospitalization. The DON confirmed that the provider note did not contain accurate information related to the resident’s current wound care orders.
Failure to Develop and Maintain Comprehensive Care Plans for Dementia and Falls
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan addressing dementia care needs for one resident. This resident was admitted in July 2025 with a diagnosis of dementia. A review of the most recent care plan, dated 2/9/26, showed no evidence that a care plan specific to dementia care had been developed. During an interview on 4/15/26, the Regional Director of Clinical Operations confirmed that the care plan lacked a comprehensive dementia care component. The facility also failed to ensure that a care plan addressing falls and toileting needs was developed and accurately maintained for another resident with a history of repeated falls and gait and mobility abnormalities. Following an unwitnessed fall on 10/21/25 that resulted in multiple fractures and hospitalization, the facility’s follow-up report stated that a toileting schedule had been added to the resident’s care plan to reduce fall risk. However, review of the clinical record and care plan showed the resident was documented as independent with toileting and there was no evidence of an intervention for a toileting schedule or of goals and interventions related to falls. In an interview on 4/14/26, the DNS confirmed that the care plan did not contain goals and interventions for falls and stated that the fall care plan had been resolved on 2/26/26.
Failure to Notify Physician of Resident’s Worsening Condition and Barriers to Ordered Treatment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify the physician of a significant change in condition and related care issues for one resident who was later hospitalized. Facility policy required informing the resident, consulting with the healthcare provider, and notifying the legal representative or family when there was a significant change in physical, mental, or psychosocial status, or a decision to transfer the resident, and required documentation of physician/family notification in the EHR. For this resident, a progress note documented that the resident became lethargic, was unable to answer simple questions, had vital signs reflecting an infectious process (BP 159/88, pulse 108, temp 99.1, O2 sat 88% on room air), appeared off baseline, and had a history of urosepsis. The nurse applied 2 L/min supplemental O2 and contacted the on‑call provider, who ordered STAT CBC, CMP, procalcitonin, UA, Augmentin 875 mg for 5 days, IV NS at 75 ml/hr for one bag, neuro checks, and to notify on‑call for any changes in condition. Subsequent documentation showed that the resident was unable to swallow the ordered antibiotic, the nurse was unable to start the IV due to lack of supplies, and the labs ordered STAT were instead entered for a Monday morning draw because the lab drop‑off center was closed on Sunday. Later, the resident’s temperature increased to 101.2, and the POA requested that the resident be sent to the hospital; the resident was transferred to the ED via EMS for AMS, abnormal vitals, and increased weakness. A review of the clinical record found no evidence that the provider was notified of the resident’s further change in condition, the inability to obtain STAT labs, the lack of IV supplies, or the resident’s inability to swallow the antibiotic after the initial provider contact. In an interview, the Facility Administrator confirmed that the physician was not notified of the resident’s further change in condition.
Resident Found Outside in Snow After Unmonitored Exit Through Unsecured Door
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was free from avoidable accidents and environmental hazards, resulting in an immediate jeopardy situation. The resident had been admitted following a fall at home with fractured ribs and had diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia with psychosis, along with chronic confusion, short-term memory loss, mobility limitations, a history of falls, and a need for cues and assistance with personal care. An admission BIMS score of 8/15 indicated severe cognitive impairment. Despite these conditions and family reports of increased confusion, sundowning, agitation, hallucinations, delusions, and falls, the facility’s elopement risk assessment scored the resident as zero, identifying the resident as not at risk for elopement. The resident was placed in a room directly across from an exit door that did not lock, and both the unit secretary and a CNA expressed concerns about this placement due to the unsecured door and the resident’s diagnoses and behaviors. On the night and early morning in question, staff documented that the resident was restless, had gone into a stairwell earlier, and continued to be confused and hallucinating, including insisting on moving a truck and talking to people who were not there. Video surveillance showed the resident wandering the hallway multiple times between late evening and early morning. At approximately 5:02 a.m., the resident opened the exit door across from the room, exited, and later returned to the room without staff awareness. At approximately 5:08 a.m., the resident again opened the same exit door and exited the unit; this time the resident did not return, and staff were again not observed in the area or aware of the exit. The exit configuration allowed the resident to pass through a first door and then a second door into an enclosed courtyard/patio that locked behind the resident, preventing reentry. At about 5:34 a.m., staff noticed the resident was not in the room and began searching. By approximately 5:38 a.m., video of the courtyard/patio showed staff outside with the resident lying face down on the snow-covered ground, wearing a long-sleeve shirt, pants, and socks, in overnight temperatures recorded at 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The facility’s internal Sentinel Event Root Cause Analysis identified that staff did not re-evaluate the resident when behaviors changed, did not implement a Roam Alert after the first wandering incident, and that there was no elopement policy in place at the time. The DON stated the incident was initially treated as a fall and was not reported to the State Agency because the resident was found on facility property and the facility did not consider it an elopement. Based on these findings, Immediate Jeopardy was called for the facility’s failure to ensure a resident known to be wandering and able to exit through an unsecure door was adequately monitored and supervised.
Failure to Report Resident Elopement and Submit Required Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely report a resident’s elopement and subsequent neglect incident to the State agency within 24 hours and to submit a 5‑day follow‑up report. Facility records, including nursing documentation, video surveillance, written staff statements, and interviews, confirmed that on March 21, 2026, a resident left their room and exited the unit through an exit door, later being found outdoors on facility grounds. A fall/details note documented that the resident was in bed at 5:00 a.m., was not in their room at 5:30 a.m., and was found outside lying on the grass at 5:40 a.m. A late entry note stated the resident had gone into the stairwell, was observed by staff, brought back to their room, and remained restless. A Sentinel Event Root Cause Analysis (SERCA) documented that the resident was found outside in the patio space at 5:38 a.m. wearing a flannel shirt and jeans. The SERCA identified contributing factors and root causes, including that staff did not re‑evaluate the resident when their behaviors changed and that a Roam Alert was not implemented by the nurse on duty after the first wandering incident. The SERCA also stated the facility did not have an elopement policy in place at the time. During an interview on April 8, 2026, the Administrator and DON confirmed they were aware of the incident when it occurred but did not report it to the State agency because the resident was found on facility property and they did not consider the event an elopement, initially treating it as a fall. As a result, the State agency was not notified within 24 hours, and no 5‑day follow‑up report was submitted for this investigated incident of neglect.
Housekeeping and Maintenance Deficiencies in Resident Areas and Laundry Room
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable environment on the East, [NAME], and South Units, as well as in the laundry room. On the East Unit, a surveyor observed a sit-to-stand patient lift near the central sitting area and another by the nurse's station near resident room [ROOM NUMBER], both with food particles and debris in the foot base areas. The same unit also had a commode bucket on the floor in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER], and a CNA/Medication Technician confirmed the finding during interview. During an environmental tour of the South Unit, surveyors observed multiple room and bathroom conditions including ripped or torn floor mats and shower threshold strips, commode buckets and a wash basin left on bathroom floors, a broken baseboard heater, chipped and missing paint on walls, and a toilet, toilet seat, and seat riser with dried feces and urine on and under them. One resident room had multiple layers of white tape covering holes in a shower wall. On the [NAME] Unit, a resident room had a ripped or torn shower threshold strip. In the laundry room, surveyors observed four untreated wooden pallets under supplies in the clean section, creating uncleanable surfaces. The Maintenance Director, Housekeeping Director, and Administrator confirmed the observed findings during interviews.
Failure to Report Multiple Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report allegations of abuse to the Division of Licensing and Certification (DLC) for multiple incidents involving one resident with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Record review showed repeated episodes in which the resident was aggressive toward other residents, staff, and a visitor, including slapping a resident in the face, slapping a CNA in the ribcage, smacking another resident on the upper arm, slapping an aide across the face after grabbing her breast, verbally attacking a resident and that resident's daughter, slapping another resident on the shoulder, grabbing a staff member's arm and not letting go, trying to swing a chair at others, pulling a visitor's arm, pushing a staff member into another resident's room, and hitting a CNA's hand twice. The clinical record also documented that the resident was pacing with 1:1 staff supervision during some of the incidents and continued to become agitated and go toward other residents. Review of the DLC incident reporting portal showed no evidence that these abuse allegations were reported to the state agency. During an interview, the Administrator confirmed that the incidents were not reported to DLC.
Incomplete Transfer/Discharge and Bed-Hold Notices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written transfer/discharge notices and bed-hold notices to resident representatives for 8 of 8 residents reviewed for hospitalization, including Residents #1, #3, #7, #11, #54, #64, #65, and #78. The report states that each of these residents was transferred to an acute hospital, and the clinical records were reviewed for the required notices related to transfer, discharge, and bed hold. For Resident #1, the record showed transfers to an acute hospital on 1/7/26 and 1/24/26, and the Transfer and Discharge Notice was incomplete. For Residents #3, #7, #11, #54, #65, #64, and #78, the records also showed acute hospital transfers, and the Transfer and Discharge Notices were incomplete. In each case, the notices lacked the name, mailing and email address, and telephone number of the entity that receives appeal requests, as well as information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing and submitting the appeal hearing request. The notices also lacked the name, mailing and email address, and telephone number of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. In addition, the notices indicated verbal consent was obtained, but there was no evidence that the facility issued written transfer and discharge notices or bed-hold notices to the residents' representatives. During an interview on 4/8/26 at 9:34 a.m., the Social Service Assistant and Social Service Director stated that transfer/discharge notices and bed-hold notices are not sent to the resident representative and that the bed-hold notice does not contain appeal process/rights or numbers to call if wanted.
Baseline Care Plan Not Developed for Behavioral Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a baseline care plan was developed and implemented within 48 hours of admission for Resident #61, and the care plan did not include the instructions needed to provide the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the resident. Review of the resident’s clinical record showed multiple progress notes documenting escalating behavioral concerns after admission, including aggression toward staff and other residents, agitation, wandering into other residents’ rooms, physical assaults, verbal abuse, and destructive behavior such as tearing apart equipment and furniture, attempting to throw a TV out the window, and grabbing a visitor’s arm. The resident’s care plan, created on 3/4/26, lacked evidence that goals and interventions were put into place for these behaviors. The record also documented episodes of incontinence, combative behavior during care, and repeated incidents requiring staff intervention and redirection. During an interview on 4/9/26 at 1:45 p.m., the DON reviewed the care plan and confirmed that goals and interventions were not put into place for the identified concerns.
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.
Some of the Latest Corrective Actions taken by Facilities in Maine
- The Skilled Nurse Manager re-educated the C.N.A.-M on the medication administration policy and procedure. Copies of the policy, along with sign sheets, were placed at nurse's stations. All medication technicians and nurses were mandated to review the policy and sign the review sheet. Audits were completed to ensure all residents' Medication Administration Records (MARs) had a photo, and ongoing audits are conducted to ensure new residents have photos attached to their MAR. (G - F0760 - ME)
Medication Administration Error Leads to Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from receiving another resident's medications, resulting in the resident being transferred to the Acute Care Emergency Department for evaluation and monitoring. During a morning medication pass, a Certified Nurse Assistant-Medication (C.N.A.-M) mistakenly administered medications intended for another resident to Resident #1 (R1). The medications included Aspirin, Cholestyramine, Clopidogrel Bisulfate, Isosorbide, Psyllium Husk Powder, Metoprolol Tartrate, and Tylenol. R1 was not allergic to these medications, but the error led to low blood pressure and a mild drop in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. The error occurred because the C.N.A.-M misread the name in the computer system, confusing R1's name with that of Resident #2 (R2). The C.N.A.-M, who had recently returned to work after a two-month absence, did not recognize R1 and mistakenly thought R1 was R2. The C.N.A.-M asked R1 if their name was R2's last name, and R1, who was mildly cognitively impaired, confirmed. This led to the administration of the wrong medications. Upon realizing the mistake, the C.N.A.-M immediately notified a nurse, and R1 was assessed and sent to the Emergency Department. R1's clinical records indicated a history of hypertension, with a prescribed medication of Metoprolol Tartrate. The resident's Minimum Data Set showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score indicating mild cognitive impairment. After receiving the wrong medications, R1 experienced low blood pressure and lightheadedness, prompting an emergency transfer to the hospital. The facility's Medication Administration Policy requires verification of the resident's identity, including checking photographs and medication labels, which was not adequately followed in this incident.
Removal Plan
- The Skilled Nurse Manager re-educated C.N.A.-M on the medication administration policy and procedure.
- Copies of the Medication Administration policy and procedure along with sign sheets were placed at the nurse's stations.
- All medication technicians and nurses that administer medications were mandated to review the policy and procedure and sign the sheet that they did the review.
- Audits of all the residents' MARs were completed to ensure they all had a picture.
- On-going audits are being done by the Director of Nursing and/or the Skilled Nurse Manager to ensure new residents have a picture taken and attached to their MAR.
Failure to Protect Resident from Physical Abuse by Staff
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from physical abuse by staff. A Certified Nursing Assistant (C.N.A.1) was reported to have held a resident's arms down during care, resulting in bruising on the resident's arms and causing the resident to become angry. The resident, diagnosed with dementia, anxiety, severe agitation, and psychosis, resides in a secured memory care unit. On the day of the incident, the resident was observed with new bruises on the left upper and lower forearm and the upper right arm. The resident accused C.N.A.1 of throwing them around, which was corroborated by another C.N.A. (C.N.A.2) who observed the bruises and reported the incident to the Registered Nurse-Nurse Manager (RN-NM). C.N.A.1 admitted to holding the resident's arm down on the toilet's safety rail during care to prevent the resident from hitting him. Interviews with other staff members, including C.N.A.2, the day Charge Nurse, and C.N.A.3, confirmed that the bruises were not present the day before the incident. C.N.A.3 also reported that the resident claimed C.N.A.1 had grabbed them. The facility's Abuse Policy defines physical abuse as actions that may cause pain, inability to move limbs, burns, cuts, internal injuries, marks, or bruises. The incident was identified as a failure to adhere to this policy, resulting in physical abuse of the resident by C.N.A.1.
Removal Plan
- The RN-NM terminated C.N.A.1.
- The Staff Development Coordinator and the Assistant Director of Nursing provided all direct care staff and licensed nurses on all the facility's Units on Resident Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation.
- Staff were in-serviced on 'Burn Out'.
Failure to Follow Hoyer Lift Policy Resulting in Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident's safety during a Hoyer lift transfer, resulting in harm to the resident. On 4/9/24, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) attempted to transfer a resident alone using a Hoyer lift, contrary to the facility's policy requiring two CNAs for such transfers. During the transfer, the resident became restless and slipped out of the Hoyer pad, falling to the floor and hitting their head. The resident sustained a closed head injury and was diagnosed with swelling at the back of the head. The resident's care plan, dated 3/2/24, indicated the need for extensive assistance with transfers using a mechanical lift and two people, which was not followed in this instance. The facility's internal investigation and the Incident Report confirmed that the CNA was aware of the policy but proceeded without assistance due to the unavailability of another CNA. The Root Cause Analysis identified the failure to follow the lift policy as a contributing factor. Interviews with the CNA and the facility administrator corroborated these findings, highlighting the lapse in adhering to established safety protocols during the transfer process.
Removal Plan
- One on One training with CNA #1 on the Lifting Machine policy and procedure that indicates At least two nursing assistants are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical lift.
- Mandatory re-education on Hoyer Safety with all nursing staff.
- Newly hired CNAs will demonstrate competency with Hoyer lift transfers.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
