Failure to Individualize and Revise Fall Care Plans After Repeated Falls
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and revise individualized fall care plans that addressed resident-specific supervision needs after multiple falls for two cognitively impaired residents. For the first resident, who had dementia, an impulse disorder, anxiety, a history of falls, and a very low BIMS score indicating significant cognitive impairment, the MDS showed the resident required maximal assistance to stand and was totally dependent on staff for transfers. Progress notes documented numerous falls over an extended period, including witnessed and unwitnessed falls in the hallway, in front of the nurses’ station, and in the resident’s room, some resulting in lacerations and hospital transfers. Despite this pattern, the written fall care plans remained generic and did not address the resident’s need for close supervision. The initial fall care plan for this resident, initiated in early December, listed broad interventions such as assessing fall risk on admission and with changes in condition, assisting with ambulation and transfers per therapy recommendations, determining transfer ability, using floor mats, alerting the provider after a fall, performing neuro and bleeding evaluations per protocol, implementing fall precautions per facility protocol, and maintaining a clutter-free room. The Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated that this care plan contained nothing individualized for fall prevention and did not address the resident’s supervision needs, despite the resident’s inability to follow directions, lack of situational awareness, and inability to use the call light purposefully. A subsequent care plan created after a witnessed fall in mid-February focused on post-fall monitoring, including medication review, monitoring and reporting signs and symptoms such as pain and changes in mental status, and performing neuro checks for 72 hours, but again did not include preventive or supervision-related interventions. After another fall in late March that resulted in lacerations and a possible shoulder injury, the fall care plan was revised to include contacting hospice MD if authorized to send the resident to the hospital, monitoring and reporting signs and symptoms for 72 hours, performing neuro checks, and sending the resident to the ER for further evaluation. The DSD stated these interventions did not prevent further falls and that the care plans should have been revised with individualized interventions based on the resident’s needs, including his higher need for supervision that led to his placement in front of the nurses’ station. A unit manager (UM 2) confirmed that the interdisciplinary team was supposed to meet after each fall to investigate the cause and develop relevant interventions, but acknowledged that the resident’s care plans did not address his supervision needs and that no assessment had been done to determine those needs. For the second resident, who had Alzheimer’s disease, unspecified dementia, difficulty walking, muscle weakness, and a BIMS score indicating cognitive impairment, the MDS showed the resident required moderate assistance for transfers. Progress notes documented multiple falls over time, including assisted and unassisted falls in the bathroom, in the resident’s room, by the commode, in the hallway, in front of the nurses’ station, and in the dining room, with some falls resulting in head and facial bleeding, a compression fracture, and hospital transfers. A unit manager (UM 1) stated that this resident wanted to remain independent but was confused, frail, and required staff to monitor her every 15 minutes to ensure she was not trying to get up on her own. UM 1 also noted that the last fall risk evaluation before a January fall had been done many months earlier and that the resident should have been reassessed for fall risk with her quarterly MDS assessments. UM 1 reviewed the resident’s fall risk care plan, which had been created shortly after an early fall and revised later, and stated it was vague. The care plan included an intervention stating, “If resident is a fall risk, initiate fall precautions,” but UM 1 indicated the resident’s fall risk should have been clearly determined earlier with specific fall precautions. Another intervention, “Determine resident’s ability to transfer,” was also identified as something that should have been established long before. An intervention to “increase rounding frequency,” initiated after the January fall, lacked clarity about who was responsible and did not specify the intended 15-minute interval. Another intervention stated that when the resident was up in a wheelchair, she would be placed at the nursing station, yet the resident still experienced an unwitnessed fall in front of the nurses’ station and another fall in the dining room afterward. An IDT note following the January fall documented the team’s meeting and confirmation of a compression fracture but did not include any discussion of the root cause of the fall or recommendations to prevent further falls. The interim DON, who had recently started in the role, reported that falls for residents, including these two, had not been thoroughly investigated to determine their causes. She stated that IDT documentation she reviewed only described the falls without identifying root causes, and emphasized that without determining how the falls happened, relevant interventions could not be added to care plans to prevent further incidents. The medical records director confirmed that the facility did not have a policy for care plan development or revision. As a result of these actions and inactions, the facility failed to revise fall care plans with resident-specific interventions that addressed supervision needs for the two residents after falls occurred, creating the potential for further falls as stated in the report.
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.
