Failure to Protect Minor Resident From Sexual Abuse and Misclassification of Incident as Consensual
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a minor resident from sexual abuse by an adult resident and to correctly identify and report the incident as sexual abuse. The minor resident had a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) with subarachnoid hemorrhage, diffuse axonal injury, psychosis, insomnia, ADHD, anxiety, and depression, and required that decisions and consents be made by a legal guardian/parent. Care plans documented that the minor was at risk for impaired cognitive function or impaired thought processes due to recent hospitalization and TBI-induced psychosis, with interventions stating the resident needed supervision/assistance with all decision making and behavioral monitoring. Despite this, the resident was allowed to ambulate freely around the facility without direct supervision prior to the incident, and there was no care-planned intervention addressing supervision or discouraging the minor from spending time with other residents. In the days leading up to the incident, multiple staff and the minor’s legal guardian were aware that the minor and an adult resident were spending significant time together. Staff reported that the two residents were often seen together, including eating meals together and walking the halls, and that staff had warned the adult resident that the minor was underage. The unit manager reported that, prior to the incident, there was fear among staff that something inappropriate might occur between the two residents, and she called the minor’s legal guardian to report that the minor was spending time with another resident and that the facility did not want anything inappropriate to happen. The legal guardian stated that she was asked by facility staff to speak to the minor about the relationship but was unable to come to the facility, and she believed it was the facility’s responsibility to ensure the minor’s safety. There was also staff report that the minor had demonstrated sexually inappropriate behavior toward staff, yet there was no documented care plan addressing supervision or specific interventions to manage these behaviors or to prevent unsupervised interactions with other residents. On the night of the incident, an LPN entered another resident’s room and observed the adult resident on her knees in the bathroom in front of the minor, who was standing with his pants down, which the LPN interpreted as the adult performing oral sex on the minor. The residents were separated and the incident was reported to the DON. The police report later documented that both residents stated that oral sex occurred in the bathroom after the minor asked for it, and that the adult resident knew the minor’s age. The facility’s 5-day investigation report characterized the encounter as consensual between two cognitively intact residents with BIMS scores of 15 and concluded that abuse could not be substantiated, reporting to the State Agency that the incident was consensual. The clinical record for the minor did not contain documentation that the resident had been sexually abused, did not describe the incident as sexual abuse, and did not document the specific event that led to psychosocial monitoring and transfer for pediatric psychiatric evaluation. Additionally, the facility did not notify the Department of Child Services; DCS only became involved after the hospital reported the incident. Adult Protective Services later verified neglect of the adult resident as a vulnerable adult and verified that a sexual assault occurred. The surveyors found no evidence that, prior to the incident, the facility implemented supervision or preventive measures to separate or monitor the two residents despite staff concerns and knowledge of the minor’s age and vulnerabilities. The deficiency also includes the facility’s failure to implement immediate protective interventions for the minor on the date the incident occurred. Although documentation shows that the minor was placed on change-of-condition monitoring and assigned a one-to-one sitter starting the night after the incident and continuing until discharge, there was no evidence that protective interventions were put in place on the date of the incident itself. Staff interviews indicated that prior to the incident the minor was not directly supervised and had freedom to roam the facility, and that one-to-one supervision was only initiated after the event. The facility’s own investigation and reporting documents did not identify the sexual contact between an adult and a minor as sexual abuse, instead framing it as a consensual encounter, despite internal staff, APS, and DCS statements that a minor could not legally consent. The surveyors concluded that the facility failed to address the minor’s inappropriate interactions with staff, failed to provide supervision when the minor was noted to spend time with a cognitively impaired adult resident, and failed to identify and report the sexual contact between a minor and an adult as sexual abuse, resulting in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care. Additional documentation in the clinical record and staff interviews further demonstrate gaps in assessment and follow-through related to the incident. Although multiple provider notes referenced plans for psychiatric consultation for both residents, there was no evidence that the minor ever received a psychiatric consult while at the facility, and the clinical record lacked clear documentation of the incident as the reason for psychosocial monitoring or hospital transfer for pediatric psychiatric evaluation. For the adult resident, psychiatric evaluation occurred after the incident and focused on anxiety and worrying about a recent event, without detailing the nature of the event in the clinical record. The facility’s care plans for both residents referenced a “reported event” and potential psychosocial well-being problems but did not specify the sexual incident or outline concrete supervision strategies to prevent recurrence. Staff interviews consistently indicated that the two residents had been spending time together, that staff were informally “keeping an eye” on the minor, and that there was concern something might happen, yet these concerns were not translated into documented, formalized interventions or timely recognition and reporting of the incident as sexual abuse of a minor by an adult resident.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
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.



