Failure to Provide Required Written Transfer/Discharge Notices and Ombudsman Notification
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide required written transfer and discharge notices, including appeal rights and Ombudsman notification, for three residents who were discharged or transferred due to wandering and elopement concerns. For the first resident, an older male with NSTEMI, malnutrition, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, BPH, and moderate dementia, the record showed moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 8 and a SLUMS score of 8/30. His care plan documented resistance to care and a wish to be discharged to another facility for elopement risk and wandering. Family members reported concerns about possible urinary infection, anxiety, and wandering behavior, and the facility informed them that the resident had tried going to exit doors. While the family was out of the country, the facility decided to move the resident to another facility with a secure unit. The family and the Ombudsman objected to the move and requested that he not be transferred until the family could be present, but the resident was still sent to another facility in another city. The Ombudsman reported that the facility only provided a handwritten notice the day before the move, which did not meet the 30‑day requirement and did not provide a reason for immediate discharge. The second resident, an older female with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, cognitive communication deficit, peripheral vascular disease, and vascular dementia, had a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Her care plan addressed impaired cognition but did not address wandering. According to her representative, the resident became upset about a roommate’s frequent male visitor and was moved to a room near exit doors. On New Year’s Eve, she went outside to see fireworks and was locked out, after which the facility considered this an elopement. The representative had placed a camera in the room and reported that staff failed to check on the resident for 14 hours, which was reported as a complaint. The facility told the representative that the resident needed a secured unit due to confusion and wandering and insisted on discharge. The resident was discharged to another town without any 30‑day or prior written notice of transfer or discharge being provided to the resident or representative. The third resident, an older male admitted with metabolic encephalopathy, altered mental status, and moderate dementia, had a BIMS score of 7 indicating severe cognitive impairment. His care plan identified him as at risk for elopement, with interventions including elopement risk assessment and distraction from wandering. The social worker stated that this resident was wandering from the day of admission, was more combative, and refused care, and that the facility contacted the family and sent clinical information to a local facility with a secure unit. However, record review showed no discharge notice provided to the resident or responsible party; the record only documented that the responsible party agreed to move the resident. In interviews, the social worker acknowledged she was not sure about the discharge process and that only the administrator or business office manager issued notices. The administrator stated that because the families of all three residents were involved in decision‑making about alternate placement, the facility did not feel written notices were needed, and confirmed that only a late, non‑compliant notice was given for the first resident after Ombudsman involvement, with no notices given for the second and third residents. The facility’s own transfer and discharge policy, however, required written notice with specific content, 30‑day timing (or as soon as practicable in exceptions), and evidence of notice to the Ombudsman, which was not followed in these cases. The facility also failed to send copies of the transfer/discharge notices to the State Long‑Term Care Ombudsman as required. The Ombudsman reported that she generally received a monthly list of discharged residents but, in the case of the first resident, only received a handwritten notice the day before the move, after she had already advised the facility to provide proper notice and not to move the resident without it. The facility’s policy required that notices be provided to the resident and representative in a language and manner they understand, include specific reasons for transfer or discharge, the effective date, the receiving location, appeal rights and how to obtain assistance, and the Ombudsman’s contact information, and that the facility maintain evidence that the notice was sent to the Ombudsman. The survey findings showed that these policy elements and regulatory requirements were not met for any of the three residents reviewed for discharge rights.
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.



