Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Sexual Abuse by High-Risk Resident
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a cognitively impaired resident from non-consensual sexual contact by another resident with a known history of sexually inappropriate behavior. One resident (R1) had dementia with severe cognitive impairment, anxiety disorder, and a documented history of childhood sexual abuse/molestation. R1’s care plan, initiated months before the incident, identified her past sexual trauma and directed staff to observe for changes in mood, behavior, sleeping, and eating, and to allow her to talk as she felt appropriate, but did not identify triggers or specific protective interventions. On the morning of the incident, R1 was very confused, disoriented, and already seated in the Country View TV lounge after being gotten up early due to inability to sleep. Staff were monitoring her for confusion and fall risk, but there were no individualized measures in place to protect her from potential sexual abuse by other residents. The other resident (R2) had dementia, an unspecified mood disorder, severe cognitive impairment, and a documented history of sexually inappropriate behavior. In 2023, R2 had inappropriately touched another female resident’s breast under her shirt in the Country View common area, and his care plan and Kardex noted that he occasionally made inappropriate comments to female staff that were usually redirectable. Interventions in the care plan and Kardex instructed staff to ensure awareness of females surrounding R2 when out of his room, ensure adequate space between R2 and the prior victim resident, and to address any concerns for inappropriate behaviors immediately. R2 was able to self-propel in his wheelchair and leave the unit for activities, with staff escort required only for distant locations. After a remodel in 2025, R2 was moved back from an all-male unit to Country View, where female residents were present, without documented comprehensive review or update of his care plan to ensure continued prevention of inappropriate sexual behaviors. Staff interviews showed inconsistent awareness of R2’s sexual behavior history; some NAs and RNs knew of his prior incident, while others stated they were unaware or that the Kardex did not clearly reflect his risk. On the day of the incident, R2 was brought to the TV lounge in his wheelchair around early morning and was able to wheel himself close to where R1 was seated. A nurse (RN-B), positioned at a medication cart with view of the lounge, observed R1 seated in her wheelchair on the left side of R2 and saw R2’s right hand inside the top of R1’s shirt, touching her left breast. RN-B immediately intervened, instructed R2 to remove his hand, and staff separated the residents and returned R2 to his room. R1 did not react during the incident but was later documented as confused, hallucinating, misidentifying a male resident as her father, and making statements such as “my dad just grabbed my boob.” Multiple staff, including NAs and RNs, stated that neither R1 nor R2 had capacity to consent to sexual activity due to dementia. Staff also reported that R2 had recently been “grabby” with staff during toileting and had made sexually suggestive comments, such as asking to kiss or lick a staff member’s belly, but he was generally redirected rather than placed under defined, continuous supervision. The facility’s own policies required individualized care planning, behavioral health assessment, and abuse protection for vulnerable adults, including residents lacking capacity to consent, yet R2’s Kardex and care plan did not establish a clear, individualized supervision system sufficient to prevent his unsupervised access to vulnerable female residents, relying instead on general monitoring and redirection. This lack of clearly defined, consistently implemented supervision and protective interventions led to R2 being able to place his hand under R1’s shirt and touch her breast in the common area. Interviews with the DON, nurse managers, and direct care staff confirmed that supervision expectations for R2 were vague, not consistently documented, and not translated into specific, enforceable directions on the Kardex. Staff at the nurses’ station were generally responsible for monitoring R2 when he was in common areas, but no staff member was specifically assigned to supervise him, and he could independently move throughout the unit in his wheelchair. The DON acknowledged that interdisciplinary reviews and documentation of supervision decisions were not consistently completed after R2’s transfer back to Country View and that the care plan did not clearly define the level of supervision required. As a result of these omissions and the failure to revise and implement individualized interventions despite R2’s known history of sexually inappropriate behavior, R2 was able to access and inappropriately touch R1, who had severe cognitive impairment and a history of childhood sexual abuse, in the Country View TV lounge.
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.



