Citations in South Carolina
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in South Carolina.
Statistics for South Carolina (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in South Carolina
A cognitively impaired, nonverbal female resident who wandered the unit and required extensive ADL assistance was not protected from sexual contact initiated by a nonverbal male resident with dementia, psychotic and mood disorders, and documented hypersexual and inappropriate behaviors toward staff. Staff had care-planned the male resident’s history of disrobing and genital-focused behaviors, yet he was found naked in bed with the female resident kneeling beside the bed while he guided her hand onto his genital area and attempted to pull her into bed. Multiple CNAs and a UM observed and intervened in the incident, and the SA later cited noncompliance with abuse-prevention requirements under 42 CFR §483.12.
Kitchen staff failed to keep major equipment clean, with the stove, deep fryer, and two ovens observed with heavy grease and food residue and no cleaning schedule for the ovens or deep fryer. Staff also did not consistently wear proper hair or beard restraints, as a male cook with a beard and a female staff member with exposed hair were observed without adequate coverage. Dietary staff also incorrectly calibrated thermometers and handled food with poor hygiene practices while plating and temping meals.
Failure to Provide Recommended OT Services: A resident with spastic hemiplegia, contractures, weakness, and cognitive impairment was assessed by OT as having difficulty with grooming, hygiene, and a right-hand contracture, and continued OT was recommended. The funding request was denied by the Administrator, and the resident later reported worsening hand contracture and pain after therapy stopped.
A resident with severe vascular dementia, a very low BIMS score, and a diagnosis of wandering was observed self-propelling in a wheelchair in the hallway and was later found missing when a nurse attempted to administer medication. The resident, who had been assessed as low elopement risk and did not have a WanderGuard or daily elopement alarm in use, exited the building and crossed the street before being located by staff between nearby medical offices and returned without distress. Staff interviews and record review showed that, although the facility had an elopement policy and a process for assessing and care planning high-risk residents, this resident had not previously been identified as an elopement risk, and adequate supervision and preventive measures were not in place at the time of the elopement, leading to a cited deficiency under F689 for failure to prevent accidents and hazards.
Medication labeling and storage were not maintained according to policy. Surveyors found an opened and undated Tubersol vial in one storage area and multiple expired, opened without dates, or otherwise unlabeled medications in several medication carts, including eye drops, eye ointment, inhalers, and nasal sprays. An LPN, RN, and DON confirmed the findings, and the medications were removed from storage.
Failure to Provide Ordered Medication: A resident with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis did not receive Nintedanib Esylate 100 mg as ordered on multiple scheduled doses. The MAR showed missed doses, an LPN said the medication had not been given because the facility was waiting for the pharmacy to fill it, and the DON and AP believed it was on hold even though no hold order was documented until later. The pharmacist stated the refill request was not filled due to cost.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Sexual Abuse by Another Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a cognitively impaired female resident, R3, who lacked capacity to consent, from sexual contact initiated by another resident, R2. R3’s records showed a diagnosis of unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance and a need for substantial to maximal assistance with ADLs. R3 wandered throughout the facility and required a helmet when out of bed due to multiple falls. R2’s records showed diagnoses including unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, and other sexual dysfunction not due to a substance or unknown physiological condition. His MDS indicated he was unable to complete the BIMS interview and required partial to moderate assistance with ADLs. R2’s medical record documented a history of periods of inappropriate behavior and inappropriate gestures toward staff during personal care. His care plan identified a history of pulling at his penis, inappropriate behavior, and inappropriate gestures, with an approach to monitor and record occurrences of hypersexuality toward staff, inappropriate responses to verbal communication, and violence or aggression toward staff or others. Despite this documented pattern, the facility did not prevent an incident in which R2 engaged in sexual contact with R3. On the night of the incident, a CNA walking down the hall observed R2 lying naked on his bed and R3 kneeling beside the bed, with R2’s hand over R3’s hand, placing it on his genital area. The CNAs’ and Unit Manager’s interviews consistently described R2 as unclothed from the waist down and R3 as fully clothed, with R2 using his hand to guide R3’s hand onto his penis and attempting to pull her into the bed. CNA2 initially saw the interaction, left to seek help, and returned with CNA3, who positioned herself between the residents to separate them. When the Unit Manager arrived, she observed R3 on the floor beside the bed and R2 on the bed, and while assessing R3 for injury, noted R3’s hand under R2’s cover with the cover moving. The Administrator confirmed that both residents were nonverbal and unable to have appropriate communication, that R3 wandered throughout the facility, and that R2 usually remained in his room. The State Agency determined that the facility’s noncompliance with 42 CFR §483.12, Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, resulted in Immediate Jeopardy related to the failure to ensure R3 remained free from sexual abuse.
Kitchen sanitation, hair restraint, and thermometer calibration failures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper cleaning of kitchen equipment, including the deep fryer, stove, and two ovens. During an initial tour of the main kitchen, the stove, deep fryer, and two ovens were observed with excessive grease and food residue buildup. The Kitchen Manager stated there was a cleaning log for the stove/grill, but no cleaning log or schedule for the ovens or deep fryer, and she did not know when those items had last been cleaned. She stated the ovens and deep fryer would be cleaned that day. The facility also failed to ensure kitchen staff had appropriate hair and facial hair restraints. A male kitchen staff member was observed plating meals with a beard but no beard cover, and he stated he was not required to wear one because he did not have hair. A female kitchen staff member was observed wearing a purple bonnet that did not fully cover approximately 5 inches of her hair, and she stated she believed any covering that touched her hair was sufficient. On another observation, a male cook with a beard was seen prepping meal trays without a beard cover and stated he did not have to wear one because he did not really have a beard. In addition, dietary staff did not correctly demonstrate thermometer calibration when taking food temperatures. One staff member was observed taking food temperatures without calibrating the thermometer and stated calibration was done by turning the thermometer off and on. Another staff member was observed entering the kitchen in a dirty uniform, scratching her face and neck, placing her hands in and out of her pockets, and handling food pans bare handed while only washing her hands once. The Kitchen Manager stated staff were expected to wear clean uniforms, hair restraints, and beard covers, and that thermometers should be calibrated after each food item is temped.
Failure to Provide Recommended OT Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide or obtain specialized rehabilitative services for one resident when Occupational Therapy was recommended but not approved. The resident was admitted with multiple diagnoses including spastic hemiplegia affecting the right dominant side, contractures, gait and mobility abnormalities, muscle wasting and atrophy, generalized weakness, and sequelae of cerebral infarction. The resident’s quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and the care plan identified impaired mobility and ADLs with a need for assistance related to cognitive and functional decline, right-sided hemiplegia, personal care needs, muscle wasting, and weakness. The quarterly Therapy Screening Form documented difficulty performing ADLs, including grooming, along with joint limitations and contractures. The Occupational Therapist noted difficulty completing grooming and hygiene tasks and a right digit contracture, and OT was recommended. A Rehabilitation Therapy Funding Information Form was completed and sent for administrator approval, but the administrator denied the request, documenting that it was not approved at that time. The Director of Rehabilitation stated that the resident was screened quarterly, that the last screening recommended continued OT services based on the resident’s right-hand contracture and decline in grooming and hygiene, and that if the funding form was not approved there was nothing more that could be done to assist with therapy services. During observation, the resident was sitting on the side of the bed looking distressed, with the fingers of the right hand contracted and the pinky finger digging into the palm. The resident stated that therapy had been helping, that the fingers had been straightening out, and that pain had improved, but therapy was stopped because the resident was told services were no longer approved. The Administrator stated he denied the funding form after his own review and said he did not see a reason to continue OT services, later acknowledging that the Therapy Screening Form contained the diagnosis and reason for services, including decline in grooming, hygiene, and right-hand contracture.
Failure to Adequately Supervise Cognitively Impaired Resident Resulting in Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and prevent an elopement for a resident with severe cognitive impairment. On the day of the incident, the resident was last observed in his room by a housekeeper at 11:30 a.m. and then seen by a nurse at 11:45 a.m. self-propelling his wheelchair down his hall toward the dining room. At 11:55 a.m., when the nurse went to the resident’s room to administer medication, the resident was noted to be missing. The facility then initiated a Code White at 12:10 p.m. and began an immediate search of the entire building, inside and outside. The resident’s medical record showed diagnoses including vascular dementia (severe), urinary tract infection, wandering, other visual disturbances, and pyogenic arthritis. The most recent Quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 02/19/26, documented a BIMS score of 3/15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated the resident had not exhibited wandering behaviors and did not wear a wander/elopement alarm daily. An Elopement Risk Assessment dated 03/27/25 showed no score but indicated the resident was considered low risk for elopement. Prior to the incident, the resident had not been previously identified as an elopement risk and did not have a WanderGuard device in place. During the Code White, staff searched inside and outside the facility. Multiple staff interviews confirmed that CNAs and other staff checked the parking lot and nearby buildings, while the Social Services Director and laundry staff searched the surrounding area by vehicle. A laundry worker ultimately located the resident across the street from the facility, between a cardiologist’s office and a retinal specialist’s office, and pushed the resident back toward the facility in his wheelchair. Staff reported that the resident stated he was going to an address on [NAME] Street, appeared calm, in no distress, and did not resist returning. A subsequent NP progress note documented that the resident did not clearly explain why or how he went outside, reported interest in going outside again, and appeared more altered compared to a prior visit, with concern for altered or worsening mental status. These events and conditions formed the basis for the cited deficiency under 42 CFR 483.25 related to freedom from accidents and hazards. The facility’s elopement policy, last revised on 11/01/17, stated its purpose was to safely and timely redirect patients/residents to a safe environment. The DON reported that elopement risk assessments are conducted on admission, with changes in condition, and when behavioral changes occur, and that residents identified as high risk are care planned and provided with a WanderGuard device, with exit doors equipped with alarms. In this case, the resident, despite severe cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of wandering, had been assessed as low risk and was not on elopement precautions or wearing a WanderGuard at the time he left the building and crossed the street before being found and returned by staff.
Medication carts contained expired and undated medications
Penalty
Summary
Medication labeling and storage were not maintained in accordance with facility policy and accepted pharmaceutical practices. Review of the facility policy stated that discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated medications or biologicals are to be handled through the dispensing pharmacy, and that opened multi-dose vials must be dated and discarded within 28 days unless the manufacturer specifies otherwise. The facility also had an undated policy stating that expiration or beyond-use dates must be checked before administration and that the opened date must be recorded when a multi-dose container is opened. During observations and interviews, surveyors found an opened and undated vial of Tubersol in the [NAME] Hall medication storage area. In Medication Cart 1 on Arbor Hall, surveyors found multiple medications that were expired, opened without dates, or otherwise unlabeled, including Brimonidine, Erythromycin eye ointment, Latanoprost eye drops, a Breztri inhaler, Oxymetazoline nasal spray, Nasacort Allergy nasal spray, and three bottles of Fluticasone Propionate nasal spray. In Medication Cart 2 on Arbor Hall, an opened Ipratropium Bromide/Albuterol inhaler was found with an expiration date noted but no valid open date. In the [NAME] House medication cart, an Albuterol inhaler had an opened foil pack with no open date. In the Skilled Unit medication cart, a Wixela inhaler had no open date, and a Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol inhalation powder had an open date recorded. Staff confirmed the unlabeled or expired medications and removed them from storage.
Failure to Provide Ordered Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident 87 received a physician-ordered medication, Nintedanib Esylate 100 mg, as prescribed for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The resident was admitted on 03/30/26 with diagnoses including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and the MAR showed an order to give the medication 1 capsule by mouth twice daily starting 03/31/26. Review of the MAR showed the resident did not receive the medication on 03/30/26 or 03/31/26, and later missed additional scheduled doses on multiple days in April, including missed evening doses and several consecutive days without any doses documented. During observation and interview on 04/15/26, an LPN stated the resident had not been receiving Nintedanib Esylate because the facility was waiting for the pharmacy to fill and send it. The MAR and physician orders showed no order to hold or discontinue the medication until 04/15/26, despite the DON stating the medication had been put on hold. The pharmacist stated the pharmacy had been notified to refill the medication on 04/07/26, but it was not filled due to cost, and the AP stated he thought the medication was on hold and said it had been his intent to put it on hold when the resident was first admitted.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in South Carolina — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in South Carolina
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).
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Some of the Latest Corrective Actions taken by Facilities in South Carolina
- Reeducated facility staff on the elopement policy and Abuse, Neglect & Misappropriation policy to reinforce prevention and response expectations (J - F0689 - SC)
- Reviewed new-admission elopement risk assessments in Clinical Morning Meeting to validate assessment accuracy and interventions when indicated (J - F0689 - SC)
- Reviewed quarterly elopement risk assessments to validate assessment accuracy and interventions when indicated (J - F0689 - SC)
- Inspected facility exit doors to validate doors were functioning properly (including administrator rounds with maintenance) (J - F0689 - SC)
- Secured and alarmed all exit doors and verified them weekly by maintenance to support ongoing environmental controls (J - F0689 - SC)
- Tested the wander guard system weekly with a maintenance log to ensure ongoing functionality (J - F0689 - SC)
- Educated all staff on wandering/elopement policy and immediate response procedures for a missing resident to standardize prevention and response actions (J - F0689 - SC)
- Reviewed results in QWAPI meetings monthly for 3 months with corrective actions implemented as needed (J - F0689 - SC)
Failure to Supervise High-Risk Wanderer Resulting in Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and prevent an elopement for a resident with known cognitive impairment and wandering behaviors. The resident had dementia with severe cognitive impairment, a BIMS score of 7/15, generalized muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, and abnormal gait and mobility. The admission MDS and care plan identified the resident as at risk for falls and elopement, with documented wandering throughout the facility and a recent elopement. An elopement risk observation completed shortly before the incident documented that the resident did not have safe decision-making capabilities. Nursing staff reported that the resident remained ambulatory with good strength and endurance, had impaired judgment and poor safety awareness, and required close supervision due to ongoing exit-seeking behaviors. On the day of the incident, staff last observed the resident in a safe environment ambulating in the facility between approximately 5:30 PM and 5:40 PM, which was described as baseline behavior. Around this same time frame, the alarm on a dining room/fire exit door near the dietary department sounded. Dietary staff responded, visually checked the area, reported not seeing anyone, re-engaged or disarmed the alarm, and returned to the kitchen. Multiple staff later acknowledged that it was difficult to hear the alarm in the kitchen and that they were unable to determine how long the alarm had been sounding before it was noticed. The facility’s elopement policy required immediate notification of all employees and a prompt, thorough search process when a resident was considered missing, but there is no indication that a facility-wide code or missing resident procedure was initiated at the time the door alarm sounded. Subsequently, between approximately 5:50 PM and 6:05 PM, the resident’s CNA noticed the resident was not in the room to receive a dinner tray and began looking for the resident, prompting a census head count. Staff were unable to locate the resident in the building, and a search was initiated. Around 6:08 PM to 6:39 PM, an employee leaving work by car believed they saw the resident near a nearby Dollar General store and called the facility. A nurse drove to the store but did not find the resident. During this period, the local police were notified by Dollar General about a suspicious person with a hospital bracelet. Police located the resident at a nearby intersection; the police report described the resident as delirious, disoriented, and unable to provide coherent responses. EMS was requested, and the resident was transported to a hospital emergency department. The facility later confirmed that the resident had eloped from the building and was found with a wander guard still in place, and staff, including the administrator and DON, were unable to state exactly how the resident exited the building, though they believed it may have been through the dining room door whose alarm had sounded earlier. Interviews with staff revealed additional gaps related to supervision and elopement procedures. One CNA assigned to 1:1 care for the resident stated it was her first day in that role and could not confirm how long the resident had been on 1:1 care. Another CNA, who had recently completed orientation, reported not receiving any in-service training related to elopements and stated that the survey interview was the first time she heard about the resident’s exit from the building. The LPN on duty reported that the resident had been on 30-minute checks due to wandering, last saw the resident around 5:25 PM–5:30 PM, and assumed the resident was doing usual laps in the facility. The DON and administrator both acknowledged that staff could not determine how long the door alarm had been sounding before it was heard and that staff responded by looking outside, not seeing anything, and shutting off the alarm. These actions and inactions, in the context of a known high-risk, cognitively impaired, exit-seeking resident, led to a successful elopement and formed the basis of the cited deficiency under 42 CFR 483.25 for failure to keep the environment free of accident hazards and provide adequate supervision.
Removal Plan
- Evaluate resident at emergency room; confirm no injuries.
- Initiate and continue 1:1 supervision for the resident.
- Assess each exit door to validate doors are working properly.
- Update the resident’s elopement risk assessment to reflect current status.
- Update the resident’s care plan and resident profile.
- Complete an elopement drill.
- Administrator will notify the charge nurse, Director of Nursing, and Social Service designee that a resident is missing as part of drill procedure.
- Director of Nursing/designee will announce Code [NAME] to signal the elopement drill procedure.
- Director of Nursing/designee will organize an immediate and thorough search of the center and surrounding grounds; complete the entire search process within 30 minutes.
- If search fails to locate resident within allotted time, Administrator/designee will place a mock telephone call to appropriate community agencies, resident's legal representative, and attending physician; staff will provide mock police with physical identifying information.
- Continue the search if resident not located, including having staff search surrounding streets by car for a 2 mile radius.
- When the volunteer resident is located, the charge nurse will complete a head-to-toe assessment.
- Social Services designee will assess the resident for emotional distress.
- Director of Nursing will notify appropriate community agencies, attending physician, and resident's legal representative.
- Facility Quality Assurance Committee will investigate the incident and implement interventions to prevent reoccurrences.
- When missing resident is found, make an announcement: Code [NAME] all clear.
- Update elopement risk assessments for all residents.
- Place residents identified as elopement risk in the elopement binder and update their care plans and profiles.
- Reeducate facility staff on the elopement policy and Abuse, Neglect & Misappropriation policy.
- Provide education to any staff not receiving this education prior to their next scheduled shift.
- Review new admission elopement risk assessments in Clinical Morning Meeting to validate accuracy and interventions if indicated.
- Review quarterly elopement risk assessments to validate accuracy and interventions if indicated.
- Maintenance Director/designee will inspect facility exit doors to validate doors are functioning properly.
- Administrator will round with the Maintenance Director validating doors are functioning properly.
- Hold an Ad Hoc QACPI.
- Notify the Medical Director of the incident and plan.
- Present results of audits in the QAPI Committee meeting for review and recommendations.
Failure to Monitor Wander Guard and Supervise Resident Resulting in Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure adequate supervision and prevent a successful elopement for one resident identified as at risk for wandering and elopement. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including traumatic subdural hemorrhage, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, and need for assistance with personal care. An admission MDS showed a BIMS score of 9/15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and documented that the resident used a wheelchair and required substantial assistance for most ADLs. The facility’s own policy defined wandering and elopement, required staff training on elopement prevention, and called for interventions and care plan documentation for residents at risk of elopement. Physician orders were in place directing staff to check the resident’s wander guard for effectiveness and function every shift beginning shortly after admission. However, review of the MAR/TAR for the period from admission through the date of elopement showed that this order was not consistently documented as completed. For the period 01/30/26–02/19/26, there was an order to check the wander guard every shift, but it was only signed once on the date of the elopement for the first shift. There was no documentation on the MAR/TAR for January related to checking the wander guard, despite the order being in effect. The resident’s care plan, initiated on admission and revised on 02/19/26, identified behavioral symptoms of wandering and elopement related to impaired cognition and impulsivity, and included an intervention to equip the resident with a wander guard upon admission for 48 hours and to check the device’s proper functioning every shift, but the documented implementation of these checks was lacking. In the days leading up to the elopement, progress notes documented that the resident needed frequent redirection due to wandering in and out of other residents’ rooms, and that staff discussed with the resident’s representative the possibility of obtaining a sitter because of these behaviors. Another note described the resident being found seated on a fall mat after getting out of bed to remove pictures from the wall and pack his bag, indicating ongoing impulsive and wandering behavior. On the night of the elopement, a CNA reported that the resident had been described as hard to redirect and constantly pacing the unit in his wheelchair. Later that night, the resident was found wandering in the parking lot and brought back inside by a CNA; the nurse documented that the door alarm was not going off at the time the resident was found outside. The resident’s representative later stated that he had been informed that the front door was not working properly and that the resident had a wander guard device that should have locked the door when he left, but the door did not function correctly, allowing the resident to exit the building. Based on these findings, surveyors determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and accident prevention, resulting in a successful elopement and an Immediate Jeopardy determination at F689. The State Agency determined that the facility’s non-compliance with federal health and safety regulations caused or was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death, and identified the Immediate Jeopardy as related to 42 CFR 483.25, Quality of Care. The Immediate Jeopardy was determined to have existed as of the date of the elopement. The survey findings emphasized the lack of documented adherence to physician orders and care plan interventions for checking the wander guard device, the presence of documented wandering and impulsive behaviors, and the fact that the resident was able to leave the building without triggering a door alarm. These combined actions and inactions led to the conclusion that the facility did not ensure the environment was free from accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision to prevent the resident’s elopement.
Removal Plan
- Resident was immediately located and safely returned to the facility.
- Full nursing assessment completed by licensed nurse; no injuries noted.
- Physician/Medical Director and responsible party notified by administrator.
- Resident placed on increased monitoring immediately.
- Wandering/elopement risk reassessed.
- Care plan updated to include enhanced interventions.
- Wander guard applied and verified functioning.
- Staff education initiated by administrator.
- Incident reported per facility policy and state requirements.
- Facility conducted a 100% audit of all residents for elopement risk.
- Verified wander guard placement and function for all residents.
- Verified accuracy of assessments and care plans for all residents.
- Updated care plans to include individualized interventions such as secured unit placement/discharge plan and structured activities to reduce wandering.
- Conducted environmental safety checks.
- All exit doors secured and alarmed and verified by maintenance department weekly.
- Wander guard system tested by maintenance department weekly with a log.
- All staff education completed by DON/Administrator on policy/protocol for wandering and elopement and immediate response procedures if a resident is missing.
- Results reviewed in QWAPI meetings monthly for 3 months, with corrective actions implemented as needed.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Physical Abuse by CNA
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a failure to protect a resident from physical abuse by a CNA. The facility’s abuse policy defines physical abuse as including hitting, slapping, and controlling behavior through corporal punishment. The resident involved was admitted with major depressive disorder and dementia with agitation, and a recent MDS showed a BIMS score of 7/15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident was generally independent with toileting and transfers. On the day of the incident, the resident was on a locked dementia unit and had experienced bowel incontinence, leaving the bathroom soiled. A CNA entered the resident’s room to assist with cleaning the bathroom. During this interaction, the resident became agitated and combative, reportedly spitting on the CNA and striking the CNA in the face with a wet washcloth containing bowel movement. The CNA later reported that she responded by holding the resident’s hands above her head and then making contact with the resident’s face with an open hand, described as a slap or “smudging” the resident’s face. The CNA admitted to multiple staff, including the charge nurse, DON, Administrator, and Social Services, that she had put her hands on the resident and struck the resident in the face with an open hand in retaliation for the resident’s actions. A police report documented that the CNA admitted to assaulting the resident with an open-hand slap during a physical altercation. Staff who assessed the resident after the incident noted that the resident appeared visibly upset but had no visible injuries, and the resident was unable to recall the specific events due to severe cognitive impairment. The State Agency determined that the facility’s non-compliance with abuse regulations caused or was likely to cause serious harm and cited the facility under 42 CFR 483.12 for failure to ensure the resident was free from physical abuse.
Removal Plan
- Removed CNA3 from the resident care area after the incident.
- Interviewed CNA3 regarding the incident.
- Terminated CNA3 by the Administrator and DON.
- Notified law enforcement of the incident.
- Submitted a report to the Regional Ombudsman.
- Completed a nursing assessment and body audit of R1; no injuries found.
- Notified R1's family/responsible party of the incident.
- Monitored residents for psychosocial distress or changes by nursing staff and Social Services.
- Provided 1:1 re-education for staff working in skilled nursing on abuse and appropriate response/intervention and workplace fatigue.
- Conducted an investigation and determined there was no physical evidence of abuse.
- Social worker interviewed all residents on Unit 3 regarding abuse, whether any abuse had been witnessed/experienced, and whether residents felt safe.
- Social worker interviewed residents on other skilled units regarding abuse and whether residents felt safe.
- Arranged for MD and PA to evaluate R1; MD issued new medication orders and PA checked on the resident.
- Obtained family consent for a psychiatric evaluation.
- Social worker contacted the family and obtained updates; family visited and reported no changes in mood/behavior/psychosocial status.
- Social worker checked in on R1 and monitored for changes.
- Initiated in-house education for all staff working in Skilled Nursing on types/definitions of abuse, dementia with abuse prevention, de-escalation of behaviors, and how to appropriately avoid these situations.
- Re-educated staff on who the Abuse Coordinator is and how to notify the Abuse Coordinator of concerns.
- Reviewed the abuse policy with staff.
- Obtained statements from all staff who work in Skilled Nursing.
- Continued education ongoing.
- Nursing management (DON, ADON, Unit Managers) to conduct rounding and audits for signs of abuse.
- Held QAPI and updated it regarding this issue.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
