Failure to Revise Care Plans After Repeated Resident-to-Resident Abuse Incidents
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to review and revise comprehensive care plans for multiple residents after substantiated resident-to-resident abuse incidents involving the same aggressor. Facility records, including final synopses of events and progress notes, documented that one resident repeatedly struck or otherwise physically contacted other residents on the memory care unit, typically when others entered her personal space or touched staff she was interacting with. Despite these documented abuse events and follow-up psychosocial support visits, the comprehensive care plans for the abused residents did not contain any information related to the incidents or any updated approaches following the altercations. For one resident, an event synopsis dated in February described that she was struck on the right side of her face by another resident who became combative on the memory care unit. Staff who frequently cared for both residents reported that both wandered throughout the unit and that the aggressor could become agitated and combative when residents were in her personal space. A progress note documented a support visit related to the altercation, during which the abused resident was unable to recall the event but stated she felt safe and happy. However, review of her comprehensive care plan, dated the prior month, showed no information related to this abuse incident. Another resident experienced multiple separate incidents with the same aggressor in April. Facility synopses and nursing notes documented that the aggressor allegedly struck this resident in the face and nose after the resident got into the aggressor’s personal space and food, and on another occasion punched her in the upper lip after the resident grabbed a CNA’s arm. Notes described small red marks and later separation of the residents, but the comprehensive care plan, dated in February, contained no entries related to these abuse incidents. Similarly, a third resident was documented as being hit on the right side of her face by the same aggressor after the aggressor became combative in the bathroom area; progress notes described assessment and a follow-up visit related to a negative encounter with another resident, but her care plan, dated in March, lacked any abuse-related information. A fourth resident had at least two documented abuse incidents with the same aggressor. In June, progress notes recorded that she was sitting in her wheelchair when the aggressor approached and hit her in the face with a comb; assessment at that time showed no injuries, and a support visit later that day documented that she had no recall of the encounter and stated she felt safe. In November, another incident was documented in which the aggressor hit her in the face with a padded box after she gently touched the aggressor’s arm; subsequent notes recorded bruising to the upper lip and a follow-up visit where the resident did not recall the negative encounter or provide information about her comfort level among others. Review of her comprehensive care plan, dated the previous December, revealed no information related to any of these abuse incidents. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that the care plans for these abused residents were not updated after the incidents. The director of social services stated she is responsible for following up on psychosocial needs after resident-to-resident altercations and that the abused resident’s care plan should be updated after any such event. A registered nurse explained that the care plan is used to ensure all care team members provide appropriate care and that it should be updated for any victim of abuse, noting that unit managers ordinarily update care plans. A unit manager LPN stated that care plans should be updated after an incident of abuse because such an event could trigger a trauma response, and that floor nurses do not typically update care plans. The facility’s own policy on comprehensive person-centered care planning stated that the interdisciplinary team is responsible for reviewing and updating care plans when there has been a significant change in condition or when goals, needs, and preferences change, yet the care plans for the four residents remained unrevised regarding the documented abuse events.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to Update Care Plans for Comfort Care and Pressure Ulcers: The facility did not revise the care plan for a resident placed on comfort care after a clinic visit showed worsening fluid retention, cough, swelling, and decreased strength; the plan omitted the no-hospitalization order, discontinuation of labs, and guidance for comfort if the resident declined. The facility also failed to update another resident’s care plan after the MDS identified four Stage II pressure ulcers, leaving only general skin-risk interventions instead of wound-specific goals and treatment measures.
Care plans for two residents were not updated to match their current status and care needs. One resident had PTSD and generalized anxiety disorder and was receiving a psychotropic medication, but the care plan listed monitoring for antipsychotic and anticonvulsant meds that were not prescribed and did not include the anxiety diagnosis or related behaviors and interventions. Another resident had new upper and lower dentures, but the oral/dental care plan only noted edentulous status and difficulty chewing, with no mention of dentures or denture-related interventions.
Care plans and related care guides were not updated for a resident with pain, a resident with recurrent falls, and a resident with severe cognitive impairment and transfer needs. One resident’s plan lacked individualized nonpharmacological pain interventions, another resident’s plan omitted a motion sensor that staff were using for fall prevention, and a third resident’s plan and Kardex incorrectly stated the resident was independent with transfers despite staff using a transfer belt and Hoyer lift with two-person assistance.
Failure to revise care plans for two residents left key safety and behavior needs undocumented. One resident with dementia had scissors removed after cutting clothing and hair, but the care plan did not include supervised scissor use. Another resident with a wander guard repeatedly wanted to go outside and attempted to go out on his own, but the care plan did not identify elopement risk or specific interventions for staff. Interviews confirmed staff knew about both residents’ needs, yet the care plans did not reflect those changes.
Failure to update care plan after change in condition: A resident was hospitalized with acute urinary retention and constipation related to neurogenic bowel, but the care plan was not revised to reflect the new diagnosis or related interventions. The MDS Director and MDS Coordinator stated they were unaware of the hospital transfer and acknowledged the care plan should have been updated to support coordinated, individualized care.
A resident with a history of anemia, moderate dementia, and chronic pain had active orders for aspirin for CAD and sertraline (Zoloft) for depression and chronic pain, but the comprehensive care plan was not revised to reflect current diagnoses and medication indications. The care plan continued to reference anemia and daily aspirin for antiplatelet therapy and included a directive to administer antidepressants for chronic pain without specifying sertraline’s use for both depression and chronic pain. An MDS nurse acknowledged that the resident no longer had an active anemia diagnosis and that the care plan should have been updated to clarify the current clinical rationale for aspirin therapy and the indication for sertraline.
Failure to Update Care Plans for Comfort Care and Pressure Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the care plan for a resident who was changed to comfort care only after a clinic visit identified worsening fluid retention, weight gain, generalized swelling, decreased strength, occasional shortness of breath, and a persistent cough. The physician ordered that the resident not be hospitalized, that metolazone be stopped, Lasix be increased to 80 mg twice daily, and that labs be discontinued per family request. The current care plan addressed diuretic therapy and a goal for the resident to be free of discomfort, but it did not include the comfort care status, the order not to hospitalize, the discontinuation of lab draws, or instructions for maintaining comfort if the resident’s condition worsened. Nursing notes showed the resident remained in her room in a recliner and was heard coughing continuously, with the cough worsening. Staff administered PRN morphine for chronic cough related to fluid overload, but it was ineffective and the resident reported severe pain and no relief from the cough and discomfort. Additional notes documented continued coughing, shortness of breath, and little relief after cough syrup and morphine were given. The DON acknowledged the care plan should have been revised to identify what staff were to do to provide comfort if the resident’s condition worsened. The facility also failed to revise the care plan for another resident who developed pressure ulcers. The resident’s comprehensive MDS identified four Stage II pressure ulcers, and the CAA directed staff to address the wounds on the care plan with daily treatment, weekly and as-needed monitoring, physician notification for decline or signs of infection, and goals to slow or minimize decline and provide symptom relief or palliative measures. However, the current care plan only identified the resident as at risk for skin integrity impairment and included general measures such as nutrition, moisture control, skin care, and barrier cream use; it did not identify the actual pressure ulcers or include interventions to promote healing or reduce infection or discomfort. The MDS nurse stated she missed revising the care plan to include the pressure ulcers, and the DON stated it was her expectation that a pressure ulcer be identified on the care plan with appropriate goals and interventions.
Care plans did not reflect current diagnoses, medications, or denture status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised and accurately reflected residents’ current status and care needs for 2 of 21 sampled residents. Resident 6 was admitted with diagnoses including heart failure, respiratory failure, and PTSD, and was able to make needs known. The EHR showed Resident 6 also had generalized anxiety disorder and was receiving a psychotropic medication, but the current care plan dated 05/05/2026 documented monitoring for side effects of antipsychotic and anticonvulsant medications even though Resident 6 was not prescribed those medications. The care plan also identified PTSD but did not include generalized anxiety disorder or behaviors to monitor and interventions related to PTSD or anxiety disorder. Staff F, LPN/CC, stated the care plan did not accurately reflect the resident’s current status or prescribed medications, and Staff B, DNS, stated it did not meet expectations because it did not address the anxiety disorder or target behaviors and interventions. Resident 71 was admitted with diagnoses including PTSD, high blood pressure, and depression and was able to make needs known. Observation on 05/06/2026 showed a denture cup by the sink with the resident’s name on the lid and new upper and lower dentures dated 01/12/26. The resident stated the lower dentures did not fit well and that denture adhesive had been provided, but the dentures still did not fit right and the resident had not told staff yet. The focused oral/dental care plan, initiated on 06/23/2026, identified the resident as edentulous and having difficulty chewing, but did not show that the resident had dentures or include interventions related to denture use or maintenance. Staff E, CNA, stated they had not seen the resident wear dentures and were unaware of the new dentures, Staff C, LPN/CC, stated the care plan should have been updated when the dentures were obtained, and Staff B, DNS, stated the care plan should have reflected the dentures and interventions.
Care plans not updated for pain interventions, fall precautions, and transfer needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update care plans and related care guides to reflect current, individualized interventions for three residents. For one resident with quadriplegia related to a spinal injury and ongoing pain, the admission MDS showed intact cognition, scheduled pain medication, and no non-medication pain interventions. The resident stated he had a lot of pain and had been seen by a pain doctor, but the care plan only listed general pain management and comfort measures without identifying the resident’s preferences for nonpharmacological interventions or documenting whether any had been attempted, effective, ineffective, or preferred. The MAR/TAR and progress notes also lacked identification of nonpharmacological pain interventions. For another resident with moderately impaired cognition and a history of multiple falls, the quarterly MDS documented two or more falls with no injury and one fall with nonmajor injury. The care plan included several fall precautions such as frequent safety checks, a low bed, a floor mat, and non-slip footwear, but it did not include the motion sensor with automated auditory reminders that staff were using. Staff observed the resident with the motion sensor in place, and nursing staff stated the device had been used since after a fall in November 2025. The care plan did not identify when the motion sensor should be used or what adverse effects should be monitored. For a third resident with severe cognitive impairment, delusions, behavioral symptoms, and diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, anxiety, affective disorder, diabetes, and hearing loss, the care plan and Kardex stated the resident was independent with transfers. However, staff observed the resident being transferred with a transfer belt, requiring assistance from two nursing assistants, and later being moved to and from twin mattresses placed on the floor using a Hoyer lift with two staff. Staff confirmed the resident was not independent with transfers and that the care plan and Kardex had not been revised to reflect the resident’s current transfer ability or the use of the Hoyer lift and mattresses on the floor.
Failure to Revise Care Plans for Safety and Elopement Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the care plan for 2 of 12 sampled residents, R15 and R18, after changes in condition and identified needs were documented. The report states the care plan was not updated within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment and was not prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals as required. Review of the records and interviews showed that the existing care plans did not reflect the residents’ current assessed needs and behaviors. For R15, the 4/6/26 quarterly MDS showed severely impaired cognition, with independence in dressing, toileting, and ambulation using a walker, and diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, muscle weakness, hallucinations, anxiety disorder, and long-term pain medication use. On 5/4/26, R15 stated the facility had taken away her scissors and she could no longer use them for knitting, while a bag of yarn and string was observed near her recliner. A 4/15/26 progress note documented housekeeping staff reported R15 had been cutting her clothes and had cut her hair, and social services noted a plan for supervised scissor use. R15’s care plan addressed leisure preferences and one-to-one interactions, but it did not include supervised assistance with scissors for safety reasons. The IDON confirmed R15 had been cutting her clothing and hair, was not safe to use scissors unsupervised, and that the care plan should reflect that need. For R18, the 5/6/26 quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 13, indicating cognition intact, with independence in dressing, toileting, and ambulation using a walker, wandering noted during the assessment period, and use of oxygen and multiple medications including antipsychotic, antidepressant, hypnotic, anticonvulsant, pain, and antiplatelet drugs. On 5/4/26, R18 stated he had an alarm on, wanted to go outside, and believed it was illegal that he could not go out by himself; he also said staff told him he needed someone to go outside with him but there was never anyone available. His care plan noted cognition-related needs and a wander guard, but it did not identify elopement risk, a goal, or interventions for what staff should do if he attempted to leave or when he wanted to go outside. The elopement evaluation left the risk for wandering and/or elopement blank, and interviews confirmed staff knew he wanted to go outside, sometimes attempted to go out on his own, and that the care plan lacked detailed interventions.
Failure to Update Care Plan After Hospitalization
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for Resident #38 to reflect a significant change in condition after the resident was diagnosed in the hospital with acute urinary retention and constipation related to neurogenic bowel. A review of the resident’s hospital record showed this diagnosis on 04/21/2026 at 12:05 AM, but none of the resident’s care plans reflected the new condition or related needs. During an interview on 04/27/2026, Resident #38 stated that episodes of constipation had previously led to urinary retention requiring self-catheterization. On 04/30/2026, the MDS Director and MDS Coordinator stated that care plans were revised after hospitalizations and with changes in condition, but they were not aware the resident had been transferred to the hospital. They acknowledged that the care plan should have been updated to include the resident’s new diagnosis and appropriate interventions and monitoring, and the facility policy stated that care plans are revised as residents’ information and condition change.
Failure to Update Care Plan With Current Diagnoses and Medication Indications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a comprehensive, person-centered care plan was revised to reflect accurate and current information for one resident. The resident was admitted with multiple diagnoses including anemia, moderate dementia, and chronic pain, and had physician orders for aspirin 81 mg daily for CAD and sertraline (Zoloft) 50 mg daily for depression and chronic pain. The comprehensive care plan continued to list a problem statement indicating a history of anemia with a requirement for daily aspirin for antiplatelet therapy, initiated several years earlier, and included a directive for licensed nursing staff to administer antidepressants for chronic pain. However, the care plan was not updated to specify that sertraline was being administered for both depression and chronic pain, and it was not revised to reflect that the resident no longer had an active diagnosis of anemia or to clarify the current clinical rationale for aspirin therapy. During an interview, the MDS nurse acknowledged that the care plan should have been revised to accurately reflect the resident’s current diagnoses and medication indications. This failure created the potential for inaccurate care planning and inconsistent implementation of care, as the written care plan did not align with the resident’s current clinical status and medication orders as identified through record review and staff interview.
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.
