The Springs Of Brinkley
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Brinkley, Arkansas.
- Location
- 1214 North Main, Brinkley, Arkansas 72021
- CMS Provider Number
- 045430
- Inspections on file
- 23
- Latest survey
- March 19, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 10 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at The Springs Of Brinkley during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with traumatic brain injury, stroke history, and altered mental status was placed on a secured unit for elopement risk but had only general care plan interventions that were not updated when new wandering, exit‑seeking, and aggressive behaviors emerged. Over time, staff documented that the resident walked the halls at night, entered other residents’ rooms, voiced not living there, stated plans to leave through a window, followed staff through locked doors, and sought ways to get out after a home visit. Despite an elopement assessment and multiple behavior notes, no individualized elopement‑prevention interventions were added to the care plan. Eventually, during a night shift when a CNA reported dozing off and not re‑checking the room, the resident broke a bedroom window with furniture, left the building, and was later found off‑site by police after nearly being hit by a car, confirming that the care plan had not been effectively revised or implemented to address the resident’s exit‑seeking behaviors.
A resident with traumatic brain injury, altered mental status, and a history of wandering was housed on a locked unit with a care plan identifying elopement risk but focused mainly on therapeutic activities and medication monitoring. After returning from a home visit, the resident exhibited escalating behaviors over several days, including being up all night walking halls, entering other residents’ rooms, standing at locked exits, following staff out locked doors, voicing a desire to leave, and stating a plan to escape through a window. On the night of the incident, camera footage showed the resident moving between the room, day room, and bathroom until entering the room and not re-emerging, while the CNA on duty did not perform checks, reported that staff did not usually re-check the resident once in the room, and admitted to dozing off. The resident broke the bedroom window with furniture, left the building unnoticed, and was later found by police nearly two miles away after a citizen reported almost hitting the resident with a car, demonstrating that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and monitoring during a period of increased exit-seeking.
Two residents with severe cognitive and behavioral impairments were involved in separate incidents where one was physically assaulted while crawling into another's room, and another sustained a head injury after an unwitnessed altercation involving a razor. In both cases, inadequate supervision, insufficient staffing, and lack of effective interventions or documentation contributed to the failure to prevent resident-to-resident abuse.
A facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and proper hand hygiene for a resident with a pressure ulcer and skin graft infection. The resident's care plan required EBP, but an LPN provided wound care without a gown and did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes. There was confusion about the identification of residents on EBP and the location of PPE supplies, with inconsistent practices observed. The facility's infection control policy was not effectively implemented, as PPE was not readily available near residents' rooms.
The facility failed to repair or replace a leaking water heater in a timely manner, affecting two residents on the North Hall. Wet linens and water were observed on the floor, and staff interviews indicated the leak had persisted for weeks. The maintenance log lacked documentation of the issue, and the Administrator provided plumbing estimates from previous months. The facility's policy mandates maintaining a safe and operational environment.
The facility failed to update care plans for two residents, one with a feeding tube and another with seizures. A resident's care plan did not reflect updated tube feeding orders, while another's lacked specific seizure precautions and medication details. The facility's policy did not address care plan revisions.
The facility failed to ensure safety in the North Hall, where water and wet linens posed fall risks, and the shower room was left unlocked with open razors. A resident with respiratory issues was observed smoking unsupervised, against their care plan. Additionally, missing tiles in the 200 Hallway created an uneven surface, and an aerosol insect spray was found in a resident's room, posing a risk.
The facility failed to follow proper food storage and handling guidelines, risking food spoilage and bacterial growth. Observations included unrefrigerated lemon juice, improper sealing of food items, and inadequate cleaning of steam table pans. Dietary staff did not consistently wash hands or change gloves during meal prep, violating the facility's handwashing policy.
A facility failed to return a deceased resident's personal funds within the required 30-day period. A resident passed away, but months later, the facility's financial records still showed an active balance of $94.08. The Business Office Manager delayed returning the funds, awaiting corporate guidance due to an outstanding balance owed by the resident. This action was not in compliance with the facility's policy on managing residents' personal funds.
A facility failed to provide a bed hold notice to a resident transferred to the hospital due to the Business Office Manager's lack of awareness of her responsibilities. The resident, who was not cognitive, did not receive the notice because the BOM was newly hired and unaware of the requirement. The facility's policy mandates written notification of bed hold policies prior to transfers, but this was not followed.
A facility failed to provide a comprehensive care plan for a resident with stroke and respiratory failure, including tracheostomy and oxygen needs. The care plan lacked specific, measurable interventions, as acknowledged by the MDS Nurse, who found it vague. The facility's policy requires the Interdisciplinary Team to update care plans upon hospital readmission and during quarterly MDS assessments, which was not adequately followed.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and muscle weakness did not receive adequate nail care, as their care plan required. Observations showed the resident's nails were excessively long and dirty, with no record of nail care in the electronic health record. The resident reported infrequent nail trimming, and an LPN confirmed the nails' condition, noting that CNAs were responsible for this task.
A resident with heart failure and respiratory issues was not administered oxygen at the physician-ordered flow rate of 2 l/min. Instead, the oxygen concentrator was set at higher rates of 3.5 and 4 l/min on multiple occasions. The facility's policy requires oxygen to be administered under physician orders and documented, which was not followed, leading to the deficiency.
A resident with type 2 diabetes requested a blood sugar check, which was performed by an RN. After the test, the RN placed the glucometer back into the medication cart without cleaning it, violating the facility's policy requiring disinfection after each use. The RN acknowledged the oversight when questioned.
Failure to Update Care Plan for New Exit-Seeking Behaviors Leading to Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement an effective, updated comprehensive care plan with individualized interventions in response to new onset wandering, exit‑seeking, and elopement‑related behaviors for a resident on a secured unit. The resident had a history of traumatic brain injury, cerebral infarction (stroke), altered mental status, and was admitted to the secured unit due to traumatic brain injury and elopement risk. A quarterly MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 12 and independent with ambulation, but a later BIMS showed a score of 2, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Despite these changes and the resident’s known elopement risk, the care plan initiated months earlier contained only general interventions such as therapeutic activities and medication monitoring, and no additional or revised interventions were added after 08/25/2025 to address later‑emerging behaviors or elopement attempts. On 01/13/2026, multiple progress notes documented significant behavioral changes and explicit exit‑seeking behavior. Early that morning, staff recorded that the resident was up all night walking the halls, refusing to go to bed, entering other residents’ rooms, and voicing that they did not live in the facility. The resident stated an intent to get out of the window. Later that day, another note documented that the resident had been seeking elopement since returning from a home visit, admitted a desire to leave, had been looking for ways to get out, and followed staff out locked doors, showing force when staff tried to return the resident to the unit. A further note that evening described the resident talking loudly, being aggressive toward staff, and again stating a desire to get out of the facility. Although an elopement assessment was completed at that time, there were no new care plan interventions put in place to guide staff in preventing exit‑seeking or managing the aggressive behaviors. In the weeks that followed, staff interviews and documentation showed that the resident continued to exhibit wandering and exit‑seeking behaviors without corresponding care plan revisions. Staff reported that after a family home visit, the resident began trying to leave the unit, walked door to door asking how to get out, watched staff to see if they were paying attention, and talked about leaving. On the night of the elopement, camera footage showed the resident repeatedly moving between the room, day room, and bathroom before entering the room and not re‑emerging. A CNA on duty stated that the resident had been going in and out of the room earlier in the shift, then went back to the room and was not checked on again; the CNA also reported dozing off during the shift and not hearing the window break. In the early morning hours, staff discovered the resident’s window busted and the resident missing, and a progress note documented that the resident had eloped by throwing an end table through the window. A police report and interviews confirmed that the resident was found off‑site after nearly being struck by a vehicle, having left the facility to find family. Throughout this period, the facility did not update the resident’s care plan with individualized, effective interventions to address the clearly documented new onset wandering, exit‑seeking, and elopement behaviors.
Removal Plan
- Revise Resident #1's care plan to include individualized elopement prevention interventions updated to include all interventions per the Plan of Removal.
- Complete new elopement risk assessments for residents residing on the secured unit.
- For any resident scoring moderate or high risk, review care plans to ensure individualized elopement interventions are present.
- Complete environment exit safety checks.
- Revise and update all secured unit residents' care plans based on the Plan of Removal.
- Provide in-service education to nursing and direct care staff on the elopement policy and missing resident procedures.
- Provide in-service education to nursing and direct care staff on the definition and examples of elopement and exit-seeking behaviors, early warning signs requiring interventions, and requirements to notify the nurse, administrator, or DON of new or increased behaviors.
- Provide in-service education to nurse management responsible for updating care plans on mandatory care plan revision following behavior changes with individualized interventions.
- Order shatter-resistant film for front-facing secured unit windows and install it.
- Implement monitoring for the DON or designee to review the 24-hour report to identify new or increasing exit-seeking behaviors.
- Implement monitoring for the DON or designee to complete audits to verify elopement risk assessments are completed, individualized interventions are present, and documentation reflects staff implementation, then transition to routine QAPI monitoring.
Elopement from locked unit due to inadequate supervision and response to exit-seeking behaviors
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and maintain an environment free from accident hazards for a resident with known wandering and elopement risk, resulting in an elopement through a broken bedroom window. The resident had a history of traumatic brain injury, cerebral infarction, altered mental status, and wandering, and had been admitted to a secured unit due to elopement risk. An MDS assessment earlier in the year showed the resident as cognitively intact and independently ambulatory, but a later BIMS assessment showed moderately impaired cognition. The resident’s care plan identified the need for placement on a secured unit related to traumatic brain injury and elopement risk, with interventions focused on therapeutic activities and monitoring of psychotropic medications, but did not include enhanced supervision measures in response to escalating exit-seeking behaviors. In the weeks prior to the elopement, multiple progress notes and staff interviews documented increased exit-seeking and behavioral changes after the resident returned from a home visit. On one day, progress notes recorded that the resident was up all night walking the halls, going in and out of other residents’ rooms, voicing that they did not live in the facility, and stating an intention to get out through a window. Staff documented that the resident had been seeking elopement since returning from a home visit, had been looking for ways to get out, followed staff out locked doors, and showed force when staff tried to return the resident to the unit. Another note from the same day described the resident talking loudly, being aggressive toward staff, and repeatedly expressing a desire to leave the facility. An elopement assessment documented that the resident ambulated independently, had a history of following staff and others, and had been wandering halls and standing by locked exit doors after returning from home. On the night of the elopement, camera footage showed the resident repeatedly moving between the resident’s room, the day room, and the bathroom until entering the room at approximately 3:12 a.m. and not re-emerging. Staff interviews revealed that the CNA assigned to the unit acknowledged that the resident had been trying to start a fight with another resident for two days, that the resident typically went in and out of the room throughout the night, and that staff did not normally go back to check on the resident once the resident returned to the room. The CNA reported that she did not check on the resident after the last interaction around 9:30–10:00 p.m., that she sometimes could not take breaks due to staffing, and that she dozed off for about 30 minutes during the shift. The DON later stated that the CNA reported falling asleep and not hearing the window break. Staff discovered the broken window only when an LPN returned from break around 4:25 a.m., at which point the resident was found to be missing. Law enforcement records and interviews confirmed that the facility reported the resident missing in the early morning hours and that the resident was located off-site by police after a citizen reported almost striking the resident with a vehicle. The police officer stated that the resident was found near a school approximately 1.9 miles from the facility, requiring travel across an intersection and along areas without sidewalks. The resident told police they were walking to find family. Interviews with multiple CNAs and nurses indicated that the resident had been going door to door asking how to get out, watching staff to see if they were paying attention, and walking back and forth to doors after returning from a family visit. The DON and Administrator both stated they were not aware of prior elopement attempts beyond wandering and walking back and forth, and the MDS Coordinator reported she had not been informed of the January incident in which the resident voiced a plan to escape through a window. Facility policies required staff to know the location of residents under their care and to implement care plan strategies for residents at risk of wandering or elopement, but staff interviews showed that routine checks were not performed on the resident during the night of the incident and that the resident’s escalating exit-seeking behaviors were not effectively communicated or translated into increased supervision. A police incident report and witness statements further detailed that the resident exited the building by throwing an end table through the bedroom window. The facility’s own missing resident and wandering/elopement policies stated that staff are responsible for knowing residents’ whereabouts and that care plans for at-risk residents must include safety strategies and interventions. Despite documented behaviors such as wandering, standing at locked doors, following staff out locked exits, verbalizing intent to leave, and specifically stating a plan to get out through a window, there was no evidence in the record that supervision was increased or that staff adjusted monitoring practices during periods of heightened exit-seeking. Staff interviews also revealed that for several weeks there had often been only one CNA on the locked unit at night, and that the CNA on duty the night of the elopement positioned herself in a doorway with hall lights off and later admitted to dozing off. These actions and inactions resulted in the resident being able to break the window, leave the secured unit and facility, and travel a significant distance off-site before being located and returned by police.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Abuse and Inadequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent resident-to-resident abuse for two of four residents reviewed for abuse. In one incident, a resident with severe cognitive impairment, metabolic encephalopathy, and Parkinson’s disease, who was known to crawl on the floor and wander, attempted to enter another resident’s room. The second resident, also severely cognitively impaired and with a history of behavioral disturbances, kicked the first resident in the face multiple times, resulting in significant injuries including contusions, lacerations, and bruising. At the time of the incident, only one staff member was present on the secure unit, and there were no interventions in place to prevent the first resident from entering other residents’ rooms, despite known wandering behaviors. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident had been crawling around the unit since admission and that staffing levels were insufficient to monitor all residents effectively. In a separate incident, a resident with a history of traumatic brain injury, stroke, and moderate cognitive impairment sustained a laceration and a linear skull fracture after an unwitnessed event in their room. The resident reported being struck on the head by another resident, who was later seen with a razor in hand. Staff discovered the injury after hearing a commotion, and both residents involved reported that the injury was caused by the other. The facility did not immediately complete an incident report, and there was confusion among staff regarding the cause of the injury, with explanations ranging from a razor cut to being struck with a metal object. Documentation and neurological checks were lacking, and the incident was not initially logged or reported as required. Both incidents involved residents with significant cognitive and behavioral challenges residing on a secure unit. The facility’s care plans and interventions did not adequately address the risks of resident-to-resident altercations, particularly for residents with known wandering or aggressive behaviors. Staff interviews revealed gaps in supervision, incident reporting, and follow-through on required documentation, contributing to the failure to protect residents from abuse and neglect as required by facility policy and federal regulations.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions and Hand Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and proper hand hygiene for a resident with a pressure ulcer and skin graft infection. The resident, who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for daily activities, had a care plan indicating the need for EBP due to wounds. However, during an observation, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) provided wound care without donning a gown, and her scrubs came into contact with the resident's bed sheets. The LPN also failed to perform hand hygiene between glove changes, citing the absence of a sink in the resident's room and lack of alcohol hand sanitizer. The facility's system for identifying residents on EBP was inconsistent. While some staff members stated that residents on EBP were identified by signage on their room doors, others mentioned signage by the resident's bed. Additionally, there was confusion about the location of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplies, with some staff indicating they were kept in a supply room, while others mentioned they were in a central supply closet or under the sink in the resident's room. The Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist (ADON/IP) were unable to locate PPE in several resident rooms identified as being on EBP. The facility's policy for Infection and Prevention Control aimed to prevent the transmission of infections, but the implementation was lacking. The policy indicated that gowns and gloves should be available near or outside the resident's room, but this was not consistently the case. A list of residents on EBP provided by the DON did not include any residents with wounds, including the resident in question, highlighting a gap in the facility's infection control practices.
Failure to Timely Repair Leaking Water Heater
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to repair or replace a leaking water heater in a timely manner, affecting two residents capable of ambulation or self-propelling on the North Hall. On August 12, 2024, wet linens and water were observed on the floor outside the soiled linen and equipment room, extending beyond a yellow caution sign. Interviews with the Floor Tech and Housekeeping staff revealed that the hot water heater had been leaking for several weeks. A review of the maintenance log showed no documentation of the leak, and the Maintenance Director acknowledged that it should have been documented earlier. The Administrator could not confirm the exact date the leak began but provided plumbing estimates dated June 25, 2024, and July 11, 2024. The facility's maintenance policy requires the maintenance department to keep the building safe and operational at all times.
Failure to Revise Care Plans for Changing Resident Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure care plans were revised to reflect the changing needs and preferences of two residents. Resident #11, who had a history of stroke and respiratory failure, was admitted with a feeding tube and required a specific diabetic tube feeding formula. However, the care plan was not updated to reflect the correct formula and rate, despite changes in physician orders. The MDS Nurse confirmed that the care plan was not revised to include the updated tube feeding information, which is crucial for ensuring the resident receives the necessary nutrients. Additionally, the facility's policy on care planning did not address the need for revisions, and there was no specific policy related to care plan revisions. Resident #35, diagnosed with seizures, had a care plan that failed to specify seizure precautions and did not list the medications or side effects to monitor. The resident was prescribed Dilantin and Levetiracetam for seizure management, but the care plan lacked detailed interventions to ensure proper monitoring and administration of these medications. This oversight in care planning could potentially impact the resident's safety and well-being, as the necessary precautions and medication details were not clearly documented.
Multiple Safety Hazards and Supervision Failures in Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe environment in the North Hall, where water and wet linens were left on the floor, posing a fall risk to residents. The hot water heater had been leaking for weeks, and despite staff awareness, the issue was not addressed, leading to water accumulation in the hallway. Additionally, the North Hall shower room was found unlocked with soapy, wet floors and open razors accessible, increasing the risk of injury to residents. The tub room, used for storing oxygen tanks, was also left unlocked, posing a potential hazard. Resident #39, who has a medical history of acute respiratory failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was observed smoking unsupervised, contrary to their care plan which required supervision. The resident was left alone in the smoking area after a staff member provided and lit a cigarette. This lack of supervision was confirmed by a registered nurse and the Director of Nursing, who acknowledged the potential for harm or fire. The facility also failed to address physical hazards in the 200 Hallway, where missing tiles created an uneven surface. This area had been in disrepair for several weeks, as noted by the Maintenance Supervisor. Furthermore, an aerosol insect spray was found in a resident's room, which is flammable and not intended for direct use on people, posing a risk to residents, especially those who wander into other rooms.
Improper Food Storage and Handling Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to proper food storage and handling guidelines, which could potentially lead to food spoilage and the growth of bacteria. During an inspection, it was observed that a bottle of lemon juice concentrate was not refrigerated after opening, contrary to the manufacturer's instructions. Additionally, a foam cup was found inside a bin of rice, posing a risk of cross-contamination. An open bag of breadcrumbs and a bag of bread slices were not properly sealed or dated, further indicating improper food storage practices. The steam table pans were also found to have brown residue, suggesting inadequate cleaning. Dietary staff did not consistently follow handwashing and glove-changing protocols during meal preparation. One staff member was observed handling food with the same pair of gloves after touching various items, without washing hands in between. This included handling tortilla shells, cooked meat, and shredded cheese. The facility's handwashing policy requires hands to be washed before starting work with food, before putting on gloves, and as often as needed during food preparation. The dietary manager confirmed the lapses in food storage and handling practices, acknowledging that the lemon juice should have been refrigerated and that the steam table pans were not adequately cleaned.
Failure to Return Deceased Resident's Funds Timely
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to return a deceased resident's personal funds within the required 30-day period. Resident #207 passed away on March 15, 2024, but as of August 13, 2024, the facility's financial records still showed an active balance of $94.08 in the resident's account. The Business Office Manager indicated that the delay in returning the funds was due to awaiting guidance from the corporate office on whether to return the money to the resident's family, as there was an outstanding balance owed to the facility. The facility's policy on the management of residents' personal funds, revised in March 2021, mandates compliance with federal and state requirements, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Failure to Provide Bed Hold Notice Prior to Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a bed hold notice prior to the discharge of a resident who was transferred to the hospital. This deficiency was identified during a review of the facility's practices, where it was found that a resident did not receive a bed hold notice because the Business Office Manager (BOM) was unaware of her responsibility to issue such notices. The BOM, who was newly hired, stated that she did not know it was her job to handle bed holds and was under the impression that it was a Medicare/Medicaid requirement for safe transfers. The resident in question was not cognitive, and their family member could not be reached, which contributed to the oversight. Further investigation revealed that the facility had an existing policy requiring residents or their representatives to be informed of bed hold policies in writing prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves. Despite this policy, the BOM did not become responsible for bed holds until after the previous manager left, and there was a discrepancy in the documentation, as a bed hold from a previous transfer was signed by the current BOM. The issue with incomplete bed holds was identified on a specific date, but the deficiency occurred due to a lack of awareness and communication regarding the responsibilities of the BOM.
Failure to Provide Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident with Respiratory Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a comprehensive care plan for a resident diagnosed with stroke, chronic obstructive respiratory failure, and acute respiratory failure. The resident was moderately cognitively impaired, as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 9. The resident required specific interventions for respiratory failure, tracheostomy, and oxygen use, which were not clearly documented in the care plan. The MDS Nurse acknowledged the care plan was vague and lacked measurable interventions necessary to maintain the resident's well-being and prevent rehospitalizations. The process for forming a comprehensive care plan involves creating a baseline care plan and updating it based on triggers identified through the MDS, guided by the Resident Assessment Instrument manual. However, the facility's policy on care planning, which requires the Interdisciplinary Team to review and update care plans upon a resident's readmission from a hospital and during quarterly MDS assessments, was not adequately followed. This oversight resulted in the failure to ensure the resident received appropriate care tailored to their specific medical needs.
Failure to Provide Adequate Nail Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper nail care for a resident with muscle weakness and altered mental status, as observed during a survey. The resident, who was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 06, had an ADL self-care performance deficit documented in their care plan. Despite the care plan's intervention to check, trim, and clean nails as necessary, there was no data found in the electronic health record for nail care. Observations on two separate occasions revealed the resident's fingernails were over a quarter inch long with a dark brown substance underneath. The resident confirmed that their nails were trimmed only once a year. An LPN confirmed the nails were too long and dirty, and noted that CNAs were responsible for nail care on bath/shower days.
Failure to Administer Oxygen at Ordered Flow Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that oxygen was administered at the physician's ordered flow rate for a resident with heart failure and respiratory issues. The resident had an order for oxygen to be administered at two liters per minute via a nasal cannula as needed for shortness of breath. However, observations revealed that the oxygen concentrator was set at higher flow rates of 3.5 and 4 liters per minute on multiple occasions. This discrepancy was confirmed by a registered nurse who acknowledged that the resident's order was for 2 liters per minute and that nurses were responsible for monitoring the oxygen flow rate. The facility's Oxygen Administration policy, which requires oxygen to be administered under physician orders and staff to document the resident's condition and response to oxygen use, was not adhered to. There was no documentation in the electronic medication administration record indicating the use of oxygen for the resident during the specified period. The failure to monitor and document the correct oxygen flow rate as per the physician's order led to the deficiency identified during the survey.
Failure to Clean Glucometer After Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper infection prevention and control practices were followed during a glucometer check for Resident #107, who has a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. On August 13, 2024, Resident #107 requested a blood sugar check from RN #5. The nurse performed the procedure by pricking the resident's finger and using a glucometer to measure the blood sugar level, which read 116. After completing the test, RN #5 discarded her gloves and placed the glucometer back into the medication cart without cleaning it, contrary to the facility's policy that requires reusable equipment to be cleansed and disinfected after each use. RN #5 acknowledged the oversight when questioned by the surveyor, admitting that the glucometer should have been cleaned immediately after use.
Latest citations in Arkansas
A resident with peripheral vascular disease, prior toe amputation, and malnutrition had multiple lower extremity wounds managed by an external Wound Care Clinic, which issued detailed written orders for cleansing, specific dressings, and compression. Facility TAR entries showed generalized leg treatments on a fixed schedule instead of the ordered every-other-day frequency, did not distinguish between multiple wounds on the same leg, omitted documentation of ordered transfer foam and a compression stocking, and added self-adherent wrap that was not ordered. Interviews with the TN and DON confirmed that the TN was responsible for entering and carrying out clinic orders, and leadership could not produce documentation that all ordered treatments were provided or explain the altered treatment frequency, contrary to facility policy requiring treatments to follow provider orders.
Surveyors found that a nurse responsible for wound care and infection prevention failed to follow basic infection control practices while treating two residents with pressure ulcers and one with a suprapubic catheter. The nurse repeatedly handled keys, a phone, and a computer, then accessed and prepared wound supplies without performing hand hygiene, touched gauze with ungloved hands before using it on a wound, and set up supplies on non‑impervious paper towels next to personal items instead of on a properly disinfected, protected surface. During one observation, the nurse cleaned a hip pressure ulcer and then a suprapubic catheter site using separate gauze cups but without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene between dirty and clean tasks, and then applied dressings after glove removal without washing hands. Facility policies required clean technique, use of an impervious barrier, handwashing between dirty and clean steps, and labeling dressings, but these were not followed, and the nurse and leadership acknowledged that the nurse had not received formal wound care training from the facility.
Two residents with complex medical conditions and extensive medication regimens experienced significant medication errors when new LPNs, inadequately oriented and not fully competency-checked, misadministered drugs during med pass. In one case, a new LPN on her first day, unfamiliar with residents and the electronic system, gave another resident’s medications—including a hypoglycemic and an antihypertensive—to a cognitively intact resident with multiple cardiopulmonary and renal diagnoses, leading to hypotension, hypoglycemia, and hospital transfer. In the other case, an LPN in training and her preceptor pulled medications simultaneously from the same cart, and a resident requesting pain medication received an excessive dose of a controlled sleeping pill instead, a drug the pharmacist stated would definitely increase sedation and could depress CNS and breathing. Facility policy required verification of resident identity, triple-checking medication labels, and at least three days of accompanied med rounds for new personnel, but interviews showed these requirements were not fully implemented before the new nurses participated in or conducted medication administration alone or in a hurried, shared-cart process.
The facility failed to implement and complete its nurse orientation and competency validation process for new LPNs, resulting in two separate medication errors. One LPN, new to LTC and unfamiliar with the facility’s computer system, was left alone on the med cart after only partial observation-based training and without a completed competency checklist, and a resident received another resident’s medications. Another new LPN, also without documented competency sign-offs, was in joint med-pass with an untrained preceptor when a resident requesting pain medication was given sleeping pills after the preceptor pulled the wrong controlled medication and the trainee administered it. Preceptors were selected informally from floor nurses without preceptor training, and leadership interviews confirmed that required competency checklists and the facility’s own med-pass orientation policy were not consistently followed or documented.
Two residents who required substantial/maximal assistance with ADLs did not receive consistent nail care, use of protective geri-sleeves, and shaving as outlined in their care plans. One resident with Parkinson’s disease, severe cognitive impairment, and a history of arm skin tears was repeatedly observed with overgrown fingernails and exposed arms without geri-sleeves, despite ADL records indicating weekly nail checks and encouragement of geri-sleeves. Staff interviews revealed uncertainty about who was responsible for applying geri-sleeves and providing nail care, and ADL documentation lacked staff initials. Another resident with tremors and moderate cognitive impairment was observed multiple times with visible chin hair and reported not being offered shaving, even though ADL records showed facial hair checks and shaving as needed were documented as completed without initials. A CNA acknowledged seeing the facial hair earlier and intending to shave the resident later, and the DON confirmed CNAs were responsible for checking and removing facial hair and that documentation should not indicate tasks were done when they were not.
A resident with respiratory failure, heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and COPD was approved to self-administer inhaled medications, but surveyors observed the resident’s corticosteroid and beta2-agonist inhalers left unattended on the over-bed table on multiple occasions, and a medication lockbox kept on the over-bed table with the key left in the lock. The resident reported being told they could use their own inhalers. An LPN stated the resident was approved for unsupervised self-administration but admitted not being familiar with the self-administration policy, while also acknowledging that medications should not be left on the over-bed table and that the lockbox should not have the key in it. The DON and another LPN described that the facility’s process and expectations required assessment of the resident’s ability to self-administer, demonstration of correct use, and secure locked storage out of reach of other residents, and CNAs stated that medications should not be left out in resident rooms.
A resident with terminal Parkinson’s disease and severe cognitive impairment was enrolled in hospice, with hospice aides providing baths and an updated care plan specifying hospice CNA, RN, social services, and chaplain visits. However, no hospice physician order was present in the EHR at the time, no hospice notes appeared in progress notes, and the MDS still reflected that the resident was not on hospice. The MDS Coordinator reported she did not complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment because there was no hospice order in the system to trigger it, later finding that the hospice admission order had been dated earlier but not entered until much later. The DON stated that the nurse on duty at hospice admission should have entered the hospice order and believed nurses knew they were responsible for doing so.
A nonverbal resident with a history of brain stem hemorrhage and intact cognition was admitted with documented unclear speech, rare ability to make themself understood, and reliance on nodding, head shaking, and sign language for communication, yet no communication deficit with individualized interventions was initiated on the comprehensive care plan. Multiple assessments and progress notes by nursing, social services, APRN, and SLP consistently described the resident as nonverbal and using alternative communication methods, but these findings were not incorporated into a person-centered care plan. CNAs, an RNA, and an LPN reported using yes/no questions, body language, facial cues, and the resident’s hand signals to communicate, while also stating they did not know sign language and had not seen communication boards or structured tools, and leadership acknowledged that a communication deficit should have been care planned and that there were no facility policies guiding communication care planning for nonverbal residents.
A resident with neuropathy, non‑weight‑bearing status on one leg, multiple comorbidities, and a known history of falls was care planned as high fall risk and required two‑person assistance with a gait belt for all transfers. After prior incidents where the resident’s legs had given out during transfers, two staff attempted a wheelchair‑to‑toilet transfer by standing and pivoting the resident using the stronger leg while the resident held grab bars, but they did so without a gait belt. The resident’s legs collapsed, the resident went down to the knees, and an abrasion to the knee occurred. Staff and leadership interviews, along with policies and job descriptions, confirmed that a gait belt was required for all assisted transfers and that staff were expected to follow this procedure, but the involved staff admitted they forgot to use the gait belt during this transfer.
A resident with respiratory failure and other comorbidities received O2 via nasal cannula under an order that lacked a start date and was not set up as a scheduled order in the electronic record, even though oxygen use was documented on multiple days. Over several days, the resident’s humidifier bottle was repeatedly observed to be undated or dated but empty while the resident was on 2 L O2, and the resident reported persistent nasal dryness and that the bottle had been empty despite asking staff to change it. An LPN confirmed the order issue and acknowledged the empty, dated humidifier bottle, and leadership reported expectations for changing tubing and humidifier bottles but had no policy addressing oxygen equipment or humidified water.
Failure to Follow Wound Clinic Orders for Lower Extremity Wounds
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete and follow wound care provider orders for one resident with multiple lower extremity wounds. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease, acquired absence of a right toe, and malnutrition, and was documented as alert, oriented, and cognitively intact. The resident received wound care at an external Wound Care Clinic, which issued detailed written orders on two separate dates for multiple wounds on both lower legs, specifying cleansing with normal saline, use of transfer foam or autolytic debridement gel, specific secondary dressings, soft cloth surgical tape, sterile roll gauze, gauze sponges, and, for one right lower leg wound, a compression stocking. Review of the facility’s Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for the same period showed that the treatments documented did not match the clinic’s orders. The TAR listed generalized treatments for the left and right lower legs, including cleansing with normal saline, gauze to the wound bed, and application of self-adherent wrap from toes to bend of leg on a Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday schedule, rather than every other day as ordered. Later TAR entries for bilateral extremities referenced autolytic debridement gel, auto debridement dressing, and elasticated tubular bandage, but still did not clearly distinguish between the multiple wounds on the right lower leg or document all ordered components. There was no distinction on the TAR to ensure both right lower leg wounds were treated, no documentation that transfer foam was applied as ordered, and no documentation that the ordered compression stocking was applied to the specified right lower leg wound. Interviews and record review confirmed these discrepancies and the lack of supporting documentation. The Treatment Nurse described a process in which Wound Care Clinic orders were faxed to the facility, compiled, and then entered onto the TAR by the Treatment Nurse after leadership meetings or by the end of the business day. The DON stated that it was the Treatment Nurse’s responsibility to ensure clinic orders were completed and acknowledged that wounds could deteriorate if not treated per provider orders. During a joint interview, the DON, Administrator, and Nurse Consultant were unable to provide any documentation that the transfer foam treatment was given as ordered or any explanation for why every-other-day orders were carried out on a fixed Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday schedule. Facility policy on Medication and Treatment Orders required that medications be administered per the written order of a licensed provider, which was not followed in this case.
Inadequate Hand Hygiene and Aseptic Technique During Wound and Catheter Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide wound care in a manner that prevented infection for two residents receiving wound treatments. For the first resident, who had cellulitis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, protein-calorie malnutrition, venous insufficiency of both lower extremities, chronic venous hypertension with inflammation, candidiasis of the skin and nails, and a stage 2 pressure ulcer to the sacrum, the Treatment Nurse (TN), who was also the Infection Preventionist (IP), did not consistently perform hand hygiene or maintain a clean field. During wound care, the TN handled personal items such as keys, a cell phone, and the computer, then accessed wound care supplies from the treatment cart without performing hand hygiene afterward. The TN touched gauze pads with ungloved hands, sprayed them with wound cleanser, and later used those same gauze pads to cleanse the resident’s wound. The TN also set up supplies on a bathroom counter using a non‑impervious paper towel as a barrier, contrary to facility policy requiring an impervious barrier, and did not date or initial the new dressing. For the second resident, who had diagnoses including congestive heart failure, protein-calorie malnutrition, hypertension, GERD, neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, a stage 3 pressure ulcer of the right hip, urethrocutaneous fistula, UTI, and an indwelling catheter, the TN again failed to follow infection prevention practices during wound care. The TN unlocked the treatment cart with keys from her pocket, returned the keys to her pocket, and touched the computer before retrieving wound care supplies, then proceeded without performing hand hygiene until later in the process. She prepared gauze pads in cups with wound cleanser while gloved, then removed her gloves and continued the setup. In the resident’s room, she cleaned only half of the bedside table with a wet, soapy paper towel and dried it with another towel, then placed a non‑impervious paper towel as a barrier for wound supplies, while the other half of the table remained cluttered with personal items including a basin with cups and straws hanging over the wound supplies. During the wound care for the second resident, the TN washed her hands in the bathroom for approximately six seconds before donning gloves. She removed the old dressing from the right hip pressure ulcer, changed gloves, and then used gauze from one cup to clean the hip pressure ulcer. Without performing hand hygiene or changing gloves between dirty and clean tasks, she then used gauze from a second cup to clean the resident’s suprapubic catheter site, which she stated had drainage and had been cauterized the previous week. After removing her gloves, she did not perform hand hygiene before placing a split drain gauze around the suprapubic catheter and applying calcium alginate and a bordered foam dressing to the right hip wound. The TN later acknowledged that she did not wash her hands when going from dirty to clean tasks, that she should have changed gloves before moving to the secondary dressing, and that she had not received wound care training from the facility despite functioning as the wound care nurse and IP. Facility policies required clean technique, prevention of supply and surface contamination, use of an impervious barrier, handwashing after removing dirty gloves and before donning clean gloves, and labeling new dressings with initials, date, and time, as well as adherence to handwashing guidelines consistent with CDC recommendations for at least 15 seconds of rubbing. Interviews with the TN, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Director of Nursing (DON) further clarified the expectations and deviations from practice. The TN stated she believed she performed hand hygiene when entering rooms and after touching anything dirty, but acknowledged she did not wash her hands between dirty and clean tasks and recognized that setting up wound supplies next to personal items would be an infection control issue. The NP stated that the suprapubic catheter and pressure ulcer should be cleaned one at a time and not treated simultaneously, and that she would not want wound contaminants introduced to the suprapubic catheter. The DON reported that the TN had been performing wound care since around November, had no wound care certification, and had received no specific wound care training from the facility, although the DON believed the TN had prior wound care experience elsewhere. The DON stated that staff should clean hands and change gloves when going from dirty to clean tasks, that separate areas such as a suprapubic catheter and a pressure ulcer should not be treated at the same time due to infection concerns, that dressings should be dated as a standard practice, that bedside tables should be clean, uncluttered, and disinfected rather than just washed with soap and water, and that a brief six‑second handwash was not appropriate.
Failure to Prevent Significant Medication Errors for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to prevent significant medication errors for two residents during medication administration. For the first resident, who had multiple complex diagnoses including pneumonia, COPD, CHF, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease stage 3, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and aortic valve stenosis, a nurse on her first day at the facility administered another resident’s medications in error. The resident was cognitively intact and receiving numerous scheduled medications, including diuretics, anticoagulants, antihypertensives, electrolyte replacements, and oxygen. A Medication Error Report documented that the resident was mistakenly given four incorrect medications intended for another resident, including a blood sugar–lowering medication, an antidepressant, a uric acid–lowering medication, and an antihypertensive with side effects of hypotension and hyperkalemia and label warnings related to diabetic medications. The error for the first resident occurred when an LPN, new to LTC and to the facility’s computer system, misidentified the resident and pulled the wrong medications. The LPN reported that it was her first day, she had limited orientation time with an RN preceptor that morning, and she had not been checked off as competent to administer medications independently. She stated she did not yet know the residents, found the electronic photos too small to distinguish individuals, and did not know how to enter orders into the computer. She described feeling overstimulated and attempting to work independently. The UM, who was simultaneously functioning as wound nurse, UM, and preceptor, left the LPN alone on the cart after the LPN stated she felt comfortable, despite the UM not having observed her passing medications and not having completed the medication portion of the competency checklist. The RN who precepted earlier in the day stated the LPN had only observed her, had not performed tasks independently, and had not been checked off to administer medications alone. Following the wrong-medication administration to the first resident, vital signs later showed hypotension and hypoglycemia, and the resident was sent to the hospital. Hospital records documented treatment for a medication error, hypotension, hypoglycemia, elevated heart enzymes, and acute kidney injury, with very low blood pressure on arrival and the resident reporting feeling like they were dying. Documentation from the hospital indicated facility staff reported the resident had been hypotensive for two hours. The pharmacist, after reviewing the resident’s scheduled medications and the medications given in error, stated she would have monitored for low blood pressure, low blood sugar, and oversedation, and identified multiple medications that could contribute to these effects. The NP stated it was difficult to determine whether the medication error caused the event, noting the resident’s existing pneumonia and kidney function issues. The resident’s representative reported being notified of a severe drop in blood pressure and stated that a physician advised seeking legal advice. The second resident involved in the deficiency had multiple diagnoses including critical illness myopathy, metabolic encephalopathy, cerebral edema, diabetes, morbid obesity, respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia, obstructive sleep apnea, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, hyperlipidemia, bipolar disorder, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease, and was cognitively intact. This resident was on a complex medication regimen including antipsychotics, antidepressants, anticoagulants, antibiotics, diuretics, opioids, and hypoglycemics. A Medication Error Report documented that the resident was accidentally given two sleeping pills instead of two pain pills. The error occurred while an LPN in training and her preceptor were both pulling medications from the same cart, with the trainee pulling non-controlled medications and the preceptor pulling narcotics. For the second resident, the trainee LPN reported that the resident had requested a pain pill but was given sleeping pills instead. She stated that the mistake was discovered later when controlled medications were counted and that the sleeping pill, a controlled medication, was stored in the narcotic box with other controlled medications. She reported that the preceptor punched the medication from the wrong card, that the pills were both small white tablets, and that they were trying to hurry. The trainee LPN stated she did not recall any specific competency check-offs and that her license had simply been verified. The pharmacist stated that the dose of sleeping medication given exceeded the recommended daily dose and would definitely increase sedation, with potential for amnesia, CNS depression, and breathing interruptions if the resident did not use a pressurized mask while sleeping, as well as possible sleepwalking episodes. The NP later reported there were no adverse side effects observed in this resident. The facility’s written Medication Administration policy required that medications be administered in accordance with orders, that the individual administering medications verify resident identity before administration, and that the label be checked three times to ensure the right resident, medication, dose, and route. The policy also stated that medications ordered for one resident may not be administered to another, and that new personnel authorized to administer medications would not be permitted to prepare or administer medications until oriented to the facility’s medication administration system. It further required that a charge nurse accompany new nursing personnel on medication rounds for a minimum of three days to ensure procedures were followed and proper resident identification methods were learned. Interviews with the UM, RN preceptor, and LPNs indicated that the new nurses involved in both medication errors were allowed to participate in or conduct medication passes without full completion of competency checklists, without consistent direct observation, and while preceptors were performing multiple roles or sharing the cart, contributing to the misadministration of medications to both residents.
Failure to Implement Effective Nurse Orientation and Competency Validation Leading to Medication Errors
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement an effective nurse training and competency program for new LPN staff, resulting in incomplete orientation and unverified competencies for at least two nurses. The facility maintained a New Trainee Folder and a Licensed Nurse Competency Skills Check-off form intended to cover unit safety, communication, infection control, nursing care, emergency procedures, equipment, medication administration, pain management, resident rights, abuse, dementia care, QAPI, person-centered care, cultural competency, and HIPAA. Human Resources reported that the competency checklist was to be printed and placed in a staffing binder, completed by the preceptor over the first three days, and then signed off by leadership. However, for both reviewed LPNs, these competency checklists were not completed, and there was no documented verification that they had met medication administration or other required competencies before functioning independently. One LPN, on her first day working in the facility and with no prior LTC experience, was involved in a medication error in which a resident received another resident’s medications. This LPN reported that she had only been trained by an RN from 6 AM to 10 AM on how residents took their medications and who had swallowing issues, and that she did not know how to enter orders into the computer system and was unfamiliar with the software. The RN preceptor stated that the LPN had only observed her and had not performed any tasks independently before the RN left, and that she had not checked the LPN off to administer medications alone. The Unit Manager acknowledged that the LPN had no LTC experience, that she did not complete the medication portion of the competency checklist, and that she left the LPN alone on the cart after the LPN stated she felt comfortable, despite not having seen her pass medications. The facility’s Medication Administration policy required that new personnel not administer medications until oriented to the system and that a charge nurse accompany them on medication rounds for a minimum of three days, but this process was not followed or documented for this LPN. Another new LPN, also without a completed competency checklist, was involved in a separate medication error in which a resident requesting pain medication received sleeping pills instead. This LPN reported that she was in training with a preceptor, and that both nurses were pulling medications from the same cart, with the preceptor handling controlled substances. The error occurred when the preceptor punched a sleeping pill from the wrong card, and the trainee LPN administered it, noting that the pills were both small and white and that they were trying to hurry. The LPN stated she did not recall any specific competency check-offs being done beyond a license check. The Unit Manager and ADON both confirmed that preceptors were simply floor nurses who had been at the facility longer, with no formal preceptor training, and that the current training program had only recently started. Employee files for both LPNs lacked completed Licensed Nurse Competency Skills Check-off forms as of the survey date, and leadership interviews showed uncertainty about when competency checklists should be completed and how much training the LPNs had actually received before being allowed to function independently.
Failure to Provide Regular Nail Care, Protective Sleeves, and Shaving for Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide regular nail care and use of protective geri-sleeves for one resident and shaving/personal grooming for another resident, as required by their care plans and ADL needs. For Resident #91, surveyors observed on multiple occasions that the resident’s fingernails extended over the tips of the fingers, despite a care plan intervention directing staff to check nail length and trim and clean nails on bath day and as necessary. The resident had Parkinson’s disease with dyskinesia, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 04), required substantial/maximal assistance with showering and personal hygiene, and had a history of skin tears on the right arm. The care plan also included an intervention to encourage use of geri-sleeves due to potential skin integrity impairment, but the resident was repeatedly observed with arms exposed and without geri-sleeves in place. Record review for Resident #91 showed ADL tasks for checking, cutting, and filing nails weekly, and for encouraging geri-sleeves as tolerated, were marked as completed on several dates; however, there were no staff initials to identify who performed these tasks. During interviews, CNAs and a MA-C demonstrated uncertainty about who was responsible for placing geri-sleeves on the resident, when they should be applied, and whether the resident was supposed to wear them at all. One CNA believed hospice aides provided nail care and that they visited three times a week, while another CNA stated she provided nail care when needed and that the resident did not wear geri-sleeves, even though she acknowledged the resident would need them due to fragile skin. The DON reported there was no facility policy for ADLs and did not provide skills check-offs for the CNAs involved. For Resident #107, surveyors twice observed visible hair on the resident’s chin, and the resident reported that staff had not offered to shave the chin. The resident had a diagnosis of other specified forms of tremors, moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 09), and required substantial/maximal assistance with showering and personal hygiene. The care plan required staff assistance with bathing/showering and personal hygiene, and the ADL task list showed scheduled bath days and documented completion of a task to check for facial hair and shave as needed on several dates, again without staff initials. Progress notes did not show any refusal of shaving by the resident. A CNA stated she determined needed care by looking in the resident’s closet care plan, that CNAs were responsible for bathing/showering, and that staff checked for facial hair on shower days and should check daily. She acknowledged seeing facial hair that morning and intended to shave the resident later. The DON stated CNAs were responsible for checking and removing facial hair during showers and as needed, and that CNAs should not document facial hair removal when it had not been done.
Failure to Safely Manage Self-Administration of Inhalers and Medication Storage
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident approved for self-administration of medications could follow instructions so that medications were not left at the bedside. The resident had diagnoses including respiratory failure, heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and COPD, and was receiving oxygen via concentrator. Record review showed orders for a beta2-agonist inhaler and a corticosteroid inhaler, but no physician order for self-administration rights was initially found. The facility’s policy required that residents who self-administer be assessed by the IDT to ensure they could safely administer and store medications out of reach of other residents. On multiple observations, surveyors found the resident’s inhalers and lockbox not secured as required. During one observation, the resident was resting in bed with eyes closed, the oxygen concentrator running at two liters via nasal cannula, but the nasal cannula was not in place, and both the corticosteroid and beta2-agonist inhalers were left unsupervised on the over-bed table. The resident stated they had been told they could use their own inhalers. On a later observation, a lockbox with the key left in the lock was seen on the over-bed table, and the resident stated the lockbox contained prescription inhalers but could not recall when it was provided. On another observation, the lockbox with the key still in the lock remained on the over-bed table while the resident was resting with oxygen in place. Interviews with staff confirmed that the resident had been approved for self-administration but revealed gaps in adherence to policy and lack of staff familiarity with self-administration procedures. An LPN stated the resident had been approved to self-administer inhalers at the bedside unsupervised and acknowledged not being familiar with the self-administration policy, while also stating that medications should not be left unattended on the over-bed table and that the lockbox should not have the key in the lock. The DON described the process for approving self-administration, including assessment, demonstration of use, and locked storage, and stated it would not be appropriate to leave a key in the lock or medications out on the over-bed table. Another LPN reported there had not been prior residents with self-administration rights and agreed that medications should not be stored on the over-bed table or in a lockbox with the key in place. CNAs stated that any medications found on the over-bed table would be reported to a nurse and that residents were not allowed to have unstored medication out in the open in their rooms.
Failure to Complete Significant Change MDS After Hospice Election
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) MDS within 14 days of a resident’s hospice service election, as required by the CMS RAI Manual. The resident had a terminal prognosis related to Parkinson’s disease and a quarterly MDS dated 02/20/2026 showed severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 4) and no hospice services. The care plan, reviewed on 03/16/2026 and revised on 04/07/2025, was updated with an intervention initiated on 04/20/2026 indicating that a named hospice provider would supply a CNA up to five times weekly, an RN weekly and PRN, social services monthly and PRN, and chaplain services monthly and PRN, with a contact number listed. A CNA reported that the resident’s baths were being provided by hospice aides who visited about three days a week. Record review showed no physician’s order for hospice services in the electronic health record at the time of survey, and progress notes from 03/01/2026 through 04/24/2026 contained no hospice notes. During interview, the MDS Coordinator stated she completes all MDS assessments and had not done a significant change MDS for this resident’s hospice admission because there was no physician’s order in the system to alert her. Upon review, she identified that an order to admit the resident to hospice services was dated 03/24/2026 but was not entered into the system until 04/23/2026, and acknowledged that the ARD should have been set within 14 days of hospice election, by 04/07/2026. The DON stated that the nurse on duty when the resident was admitted to hospice should have entered an admission order for hospice and expressed that she believed nurses understood they were responsible for adding such orders, treating them like any other order.
Failure to Care Plan Communication Deficit for Nonverbal Resident
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan addressing a communication deficit for a nonverbal resident. The resident had been admitted with diagnoses including nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage in the brain stem, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder, and was unable to move the right side of the body, including the face and mouth, due to a stroke. The admission MDS documented unclear speech, that the resident rarely or never made themself understood, sometimes understood others, and responded adequately only to simple, direct communication, while the BIMS score was 15, indicating intact cognition. The Baseline Care Plan noted the resident did not communicate easily with staff, but on review of the Comprehensive Care Plan initiated at admission, no communication deficit with corresponding interventions had been initiated. Record review showed multiple assessments and notes documenting the resident’s nonverbal status and alternative communication methods, but these findings were not translated into a specific communication care plan problem with individualized interventions. The Nursing Admit/Readmit/Quarterly Assessment described the resident as soft spoken and mouthing words, and progress notes indicated the resident was very soft spoken, nonverbal, able to shake the head yes and no, and utilized sign language. A social services admission assessment documented that the resident’s speech was clear, that the resident was nonverbal, used sign language as another mode of communication, and rarely or never was able to make themself understood but could understand others. An APRN note and an SLP evaluation further confirmed that the resident communicated by nodding or shaking the head and had impaired communication skills. Interviews with staff demonstrated that, in the absence of a care-planned communication deficit with defined interventions, staff relied on general approaches and did not have consistent tools or guidance for communicating with the resident. CNAs and an RNA reported communicating with the resident by asking yes/no questions, observing body language and facial cues, and noting that the resident used the left hand to indicate numbers or point to areas of pain, while also stating they did not know sign language and had not seen communication boards or other aids. An LPN reported talking to nonverbal residents as to verbal residents, using facial expressions to interpret needs, and was unaware of any communication boards or specific interventions for nonverbal residents. The MDS coordinator and DON acknowledged that a communication deficit should have been triggered and care planned at admission for a nonverbal resident, and the DON further stated the facility did not have policies for care plans, comprehensive care plans, communication, or communicating with nonverbal residents.
Failure to Use Required Gait Belt During Transfer Resulting in Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to utilize appropriate transfer equipment, specifically a gait belt, during a toilet transfer for one resident, resulting in a fall and knee abrasion. The resident had medical diagnoses including a left lower leg blood clot, stage 4 kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, neuropathy, and was care planned as high risk for falls with gait and balance problems and limited mobility related to weakness. The resident was also non‑weight bearing on the left lower extremity and required assistance of two staff members with all transfers. The admission MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact and had a history of a fall in the prior months. Prior to the cited incident, the resident had experienced multiple falls at the facility. An unwitnessed incident report documented that the resident slid out of a wheelchair while trying to pick up a ring from the floor, with no injury. A later witnessed incident documented that the resident’s legs gave out during a transfer, and the resident was assisted to the floor without injury and then transferred back to the wheelchair using a gait belt and two staff. These events established that the resident had recurrent episodes of legs “giving out” and required two‑person assistance and a gait belt for safe transfers. On the date of the deficiency, during a transfer from wheelchair to toilet in the bathroom, two staff members (a MA‑C and a CNA) attempted to stand and pivot the resident using the right leg while the resident held onto grab bars, but they did not use a gait belt. The resident’s legs collapsed, and the resident went down to the knees, sustaining an abrasion to the right kneecap, which the resident attributed to the lack of a gait belt. Interviews with the resident, nursing staff, therapy staff, and administration confirmed that the resident was non‑weight bearing on the left leg, required two‑person assistance and a gait belt for transfers, and that facility expectations and policy required use of a gait belt for all assisted transfers. Staff involved acknowledged they “forgot” to use the gait belt during this transfer, and other staff confirmed that gait belts were expected to be used with every transfer when assistance was needed.
Failure to Maintain Active Oxygen Orders and Humidified Oxygen for Resident Comfort
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that oxygen therapy orders were properly scheduled and active before administration and to provide humidified oxygen in accordance with a resident’s preferences and comfort needs. Resident #125, who had diagnoses including respiratory failure, heart failure, and type II diabetes, had an active order entered on 04/15/2026 for oxygen at 2–4 liters via nasal cannula, but the order lacked a start date and did not appear as a scheduled order in the electronic record. The admission MDS in progress with an ARD of 04/20/2026 did not indicate that the resident was receiving oxygen therapy, despite documentation on the resident’s oxygen saturation summary that the resident was on oxygen on multiple dates in April. An LPN confirmed that the oxygen order had been present since 04/15/2026 but was not set up as a scheduled order and had no active date. The facility also failed to provide and maintain humidified water for the resident’s nasal comfort over several days. On multiple observations from 04/20/2026 through 04/22/2026, the resident’s humidifier bottle was found undated or dated but empty, while the resident was receiving 2 liters of oxygen via nasal cannula. The resident repeatedly reported that their nose was very dry and that the humidifier bottle had been empty since Monday, and stated they had asked staff to change the water bottle but could not identify to whom. An LPN acknowledged that the humidified water bottle dated 04/21/2026 was empty and stated it should not have been empty at 2 liters of oxygen, suspecting that someone may have dated an empty bottle without actually changing it. The administrator and DON stated their expectation that humidified water bottles be changed on Tuesday evenings with the tubing or when empty, but there was no facility policy addressing oxygen tubing, storage, or humidified water bottles, and the existing oxygen safety policy only addressed handling oxygen, not equipment.
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.
