Aviata At Harts Harbor
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Jacksonville, Florida.
- Location
- 11565 Harts Rd, Jacksonville, Florida 32218
- CMS Provider Number
- 105632
- Inspections on file
- 36
- Latest survey
- April 2, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 26
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Aviata At Harts Harbor during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Unsafe and Unsanitary Resident Room Conditions: Multiple resident rooms and hallways had damaged surfaces, stains, debris, broken fixtures, and insect activity. Observations included cockroaches, ants, gnats, foul odors, exposed pipes, cracked and peeling paint, call bells on the floor, a nonworking bathroom light, and cluttered or unsanitary room conditions. Staff interviews confirmed routine housekeeping and pest-reporting expectations, and the maintenance director acknowledged the insects observed in a resident’s room.
Unordered Geri-Chair Use Without Care Plan: A resident with severe dementia, adult failure to thrive, DM, depression, and repeated falls was observed in a reclining Geri-Chair in multiple areas of the facility. There was no MD order or care plan for the chair, and staff gave inconsistent explanations, including that it was used to prevent falls or because the resident could not sit up for long periods. OT, PT, and MDS RN all stated the use was not documented or care planned.
Unsafe Solo Hoyer Lift Transfer: A CNA transferred a dependent resident with a Hoyer lift without the required second staff member, while the resident was suspended and swinging side to side above a shower bed. The resident knew two staff were required, and both the CNA and an LPN/unit manager confirmed the lift should not have been used alone. The resident had paraplegia, a colostomy, dysphagia, and intact cognition.
A resident with acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and COPD had a physician order for continuous O2 at 2 LPM, but was observed receiving O2 at 3 LPM via nasal cannula on multiple occasions. During the survey, an LPN changed the concentrator from 3 LPM to 2 LPM after noting the setting was incorrect and stated staff should follow the physician order and check the concentrator every shift. The resident had intact cognition, no documented psychosis or behaviors, and required substantial to maximal assistance with mobility.
A resident with dementia and impaired safety awareness, identified as an elopement risk and requiring a wander guard and supervision, was able to leave the facility unattended after signing out at the front desk. Staff involved were not familiar with the Leave of Absence process or the resident's elopement risk, and had not received proper training or participated in relevant drills. Required assessments and documentation were not completed as per facility policy, leading to the resident's unsupervised exit.
A resident identified as an elopement risk was allowed to leave the facility unescorted after removing a wander guard, due to staff not following established protocols and lacking training on elopement prevention and LOA procedures. Staff were unaware of required risk assessments and documentation, and audits of at-risk residents were infrequent, leading to inconsistent implementation of elopement prevention measures.
The facility failed to maintain a clean environment for residents receiving enteral feedings, with dried food product and debris observed in multiple rooms. Staff interviews revealed unclear cleaning responsibilities between housekeeping and nursing staff, leading to unsanitary conditions. Despite scheduled cleanings, the facility's cleaning protocols were not effectively followed.
The facility failed to complete timely Quarterly MDS Assessments for seven residents. An MDS Nurse confirmed that assessments for two residents were overdue, with the last assessments transmitted months prior. The facility's 30-day MDS scheduler report revealed that seven residents were overdue for assessments, contrary to the policy of conducting assessments every three months.
A resident's call light was repeatedly found out of reach, preventing them from requesting assistance. Despite being capable of using the call light, it was clipped away after care and not returned to an accessible position. Staff confirmed the oversight, which contradicted facility training emphasizing call light accessibility.
A facility failed to conduct a required Level II PASARR for a resident with serious mental health diagnoses, preventing the incorporation of necessary care recommendations. The resident was initially exempt from a Level II due to a 30-day hospital discharge exemption, but the facility did not complete the evaluation within the required timeframe. The DON and DSS were responsible for reviewing PASARRs but did not ensure the necessary screening was conducted.
A facility failed to update the care plan for a resident receiving dialysis, despite a change in the dialysis port site from the left arm to the right upper chest. The care plan inaccurately reflected the presence of an arteriovenous fistula in the left arm, even though the resident's medical records noted the chest port as early as April. This oversight was confirmed by an LPN during a survey, highlighting a lapse in adhering to the facility's policy of updating care plans based on changing resident needs.
The facility failed to provide adequate ADL care for two residents, resulting in poor grooming and hygiene. A diabetic resident had unclean, overgrown nails, and another resident, who is blind, reported not receiving regular bed baths. Documentation of care was inconsistent, with missing records for showers and nail care. The facility's procedures for ADL care were not followed, leading to these deficiencies.
The facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care to two residents by not adhering to physician's orders for oxygen therapy. One resident received a lower oxygen flow rate than prescribed, while another received a higher rate than ordered. These discrepancies were observed over several days and confirmed by staff, indicating a failure to comply with the facility's policy on oxygen therapy.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions was not provided with necessary medically-related social services, resulting in missed medical appointments and loss of financial benefits. The resident, who had no income or safe discharge location, received inadequate assistance from the facility's social services and business office. The facility failed to provide necessary follow-ups with cardiology and neurology, contributing to the deficiency.
A facility's medication error rate was found to be 8%, exceeding the acceptable threshold of 5%. An LPN administered Torsemide incorrectly by giving one tablet instead of three and failed to instruct a resident to rinse and spit after using Advair, contrary to physician's orders and facility policy.
A facility licensed for 180 beds failed to employ a qualified social worker full-time. The Director of Social Services (DSS) L was found to lack the necessary credentials, holding a degree in Interdisciplinary Studies not focused on social work. The HR Director confirmed the degree was invalid for the DSS role, and the facility had no other qualified individual in the position.
A facility failed to properly clean and disinfect a glucometer used for a resident during medication administration. An LPN was observed wiping the glucometer for only 30 seconds and placing it back in the pouch while still wet, contrary to the facility's policy and manufacturer's guidelines, which require a two-minute wet contact time for effective disinfection.
The facility's pest control program was ineffective, as evidenced by the presence of cockroaches and flying insects in resident rooms and the activities room. Observations and interviews confirmed the issue, with a resident expressing frustration over the ineffective measures. Financial difficulties led to the cessation of services by the contracted pest control company, and a new contract had not been secured.
Unsafe and Unsanitary Resident Room Conditions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents’ right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 14 residents in 11 rooms and in both hallways of the facility. During a tour, multiple resident rooms were observed with damaged surfaces, debris, stains, broken fixtures, and insect activity. Examples included a room occupied by two residents with a missing door frame, separated floorboards in the bathroom, dark stains on the bathroom floor, holes and cracks in the closet frame, and debris on the windowsill. Another room occupied by a resident had live cockroaches observed running across the floor and behind a dresser, and the resident stated she had seen roaches in the room before. Additional rooms showed similar conditions. One room occupied by two residents had red and brown stains on the floor, debris and insect carcasses on the windowsill, and cracked, stained, and separated trim. Another room occupied by two residents had a foul odor, items piled on a wheelchair, an open bottle of sterile water with no open date, a trash can without a liner, debris and gloves on the floor, cracked floorboards with brown substance, stains and flakes on the floor, and trash bags and linens stored on the floor. A resident room had stains on the floor and wall, cracks under the windowsill, debris and insect carcasses on the windowsill, towels and a broom on the bathroom floor, an unidentified green object in a bedside commode, and chipped paint behind the toilet. Another resident room had debris on the windowsill, broken blinds, call bells on the floor and wrapped around cords, a bathroom light that did not work, stained rags in the sink, stains on the wall and handrail by the toilet, and a pair of shoes under the bed next to a pool of brown liquid. The observations also included exposed pipes in the ceiling covered with a thick black substance along the East Hall, cracked and peeling paint throughout the ceiling, and additional resident rooms with brown stains, debris, broken or cracked wall and ceiling trim, trash bags on the floor, and insects in the room. One nonverbal resident’s room contained crawling insects on the floor and wall, flying insects near the bed, ants near the call light box, personal belongings stored in cardboard boxes, stains on the floor behind the bed, and a call light that did not illuminate outside the doorway when pressed. Staff interviews showed that housekeeping staff were expected to clean rooms daily and report pests to maintenance, while maintenance stated pest control came every two weeks and that sightings should be reported to him or documented. The maintenance director acknowledged the insects in the resident’s room during the interview and stated the resident needed to be relocated. A CNA also stated she had observed gnats in that resident’s room and wiped them up with soap and water.
Unordered Geri-Chair Use Without Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to keep one resident free from the use of a physical restraint when Resident #10 was placed in a reclining Geri-Chair without a physician’s order or care plan. The resident had diagnoses including severe dementia, adult failure to thrive, diabetes mellitus, depression, and repeated falls. During observation, the resident was seen sitting in the Geri-Chair in the dining room and later in the activity room watching television, including at a table. The medical record showed no physician’s order for the Geri-Chair and no active care plan addressing its use. Staff interviews did not identify a documented clinical rationale for the chair. A CNA stated the resident loved her independence and believed the chair had been used about a month earlier to keep her from falling. Another CNA said she was told by a nurse that the resident was to be in the Geri-Chair because of falls, but could not recall which nurse said this. The OT stated it was a temporary measure and that it was not documented, while the PT stated he did not know who placed the resident in the chair or the clinical rationale for it. The MDS RN stated she was not aware of the Geri-Chair use and it was not care planned, and the DCS stated staff believed it was used because the resident could not sit up for long periods, but could not identify where that was documented. The facility policy required a restraint evaluation, physician’s order, consent, and documentation in the care plan and nurses’ notes, but none was found for the Geri-Chair.
Unsafe Solo Hoyer Lift Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance devices were used to prevent accidents when a CNA transferred a dependent resident with a mechanical Hoyer lift without a second staff member. On 3/30/26 at 11:15 AM, Resident #59 was observed in the hallway outside his room hanging from the lift while CNA E operated it alone and moved him into position over a shower bed made of PVC pipes and a waterproof mattress. As the resident was lowered, he swung from side to side in mid-air, and the CNA paused the lift repeatedly and released a control in an attempt to steady him before continuing the transfer without assistance. Unit Manager A later observed CNA E continuing to maneuver the lift with the resident suspended above the shower bed and confirmed that the CNA should not have operated the lift alone. Resident #59 stated he knew two staff members were required for the lift and said CNA E could not find another staff member, so she proceeded by herself. CNA E also stated she knew the Hoyer lift required two staff members but could not find help and decided to transfer the resident alone. Resident #59’s record showed diagnoses of paraplegia, assault by firearm, colostomy, and dysphagia, with a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition and dependence for several mobility-related activities.
Incorrect Oxygen Flow Rate for Resident Receiving Continuous O2
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident who required oxygen therapy. Resident #74, who had diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and COPD, had a physician order for oxygen at 2 LPM continuously starting 10/5/25. However, the resident was observed on 3/30/26 and again on 3/31/26 receiving oxygen at 3 LPM via nasal cannula. During the survey, an LPN changed the oxygen concentrator setting from 3 LPM to 2 LPM after being asked about the incorrect flow rate and stated the nurse should follow the physician order and check the concentrator every shift. The resident’s record showed intact cognition with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, no documented psychosis or behaviors, and a need for substantial to maximal assistance with bed mobility and transfers. Progress notes from 12/29/25 through 3/31/26 contained only one entry related to manipulation of the oxygen concentrator, and that entry was documented during the survey after the incorrect setting was observed. The DON stated the facility used Angel Rounds and tagged concentrators with the prescribed liters so staff could identify incorrect settings, and CNA T stated CNAs were responsible only for ensuring the nasal cannula was in place and were not instructed to adjust concentrator flow rates.
Failure to Prevent Elopement Due to Inadequate Supervision and Staff Training
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent the elopement of a resident who had been identified as an elopement risk. The resident, with a history of metabolic encephalopathy, dementia, impaired safety awareness, and other medical and psychiatric conditions, was care planned as an elopement risk and required a wander guard and supervision when leaving the facility. Despite these interventions, the resident was able to sign himself out at the front desk and exit the facility unattended, after removing his wander guard. The receptionist, unaware of the resident's elopement risk and the proper Leave of Absence (LOA) process, allowed the resident to leave after he signed the book, without verifying with nursing staff or ensuring an escort was present. Interviews revealed that both the Human Resource Coordinator (HRC) and the receptionist were not familiar with the facility's LOA process or the specific protocols for residents at risk for elopement. The receptionist had not received training on the LOA process or participated in any drills related to elopement prevention. The HRC assumed the receptionist knew the process and did not intervene when the resident requested to go outside. The resident was later found across the street, having left the facility without his wheelchair or supervision, and was assisted back by staff and a neighbor. Further review indicated that required elopement assessments were not completed according to facility policy, and documentation of elopement drills prior to the incident could not be produced. The facility's policies required that residents at risk for elopement have individualized interventions, regular assessments, and that staff be trained on LOA procedures. These protocols were not followed, resulting in the resident's unsupervised exit from the facility.
Failure to Implement Elopement Prevention Protocols and Staff Training
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies related to elopement. A resident with a history of metabolic encephalopathy, dementia, impaired safety awareness, and other medical conditions was identified as an elopement risk and was care planned to require an escort and a wander guard when leaving the facility. Despite these interventions, the resident was permitted to sign out of the facility without an escort and exited through the main entrance. The resident removed his wander guard prior to leaving, and staff did not verify its presence or function at the time of the incident. The receptionist and Human Resource Coordinator involved were not fully aware of the elopement risk protocols or the leave of absence (LOA) process, and the receptionist had not received training or participated in drills related to elopement prevention or LOA procedures. Record review revealed that the resident's care plan and physician orders specified the need for a wander guard and supervision when leaving the facility. However, the required elopement assessments were not completed according to policy, and documentation of elopement drills prior to the incident could not be produced. The facility's elopement binder and risk assessments were not consistently updated, and audits of residents at risk for elopement were infrequent, with only three audits documented. Additionally, there was confusion among staff regarding the LOA process, and the receptionist was unaware of the elopement binder and related protocols. Further review of other residents' records indicated inconsistencies in care planning and risk assessment for elopement. For example, one resident was care planned as an elopement risk with a wander guard in place, despite having no documented wandering behaviors or cognitive impairment. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of consistent training and understanding of elopement prevention procedures. The facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program and Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) identified these systemic issues, but the corrective actions outlined were not fully implemented or monitored, contributing to the deficiency.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary Conditions for Residents Receiving Enteral Feedings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a sanitary and comfortable living environment for residents receiving enteral feedings, as observed during a survey. Specifically, the rooms of four residents were found to be unsanitary, with dried enteral food product splattered on various surfaces, including gastrostomy tube poles, pumps, tubing, floors, walls, bed frames, bed rails, privacy curtains, tray tables, floor mats, and nightstands. Disposable tubing caps and other debris were also observed on the floors and under beds, indicating a lack of proper cleaning and maintenance. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity and coordination between housekeeping and nursing staff regarding cleaning responsibilities. Housekeeping staff were responsible for cleaning most surfaces, but only nursing staff were permitted to clean the enteral feeding pumps. Despite this division of labor, the enteral feeding product was not cleaned promptly, leading to dried residues that were difficult to remove. The Director of Environmental Services expressed a desire for better communication between nurses and housekeepers to address spills immediately, as dried food product required strong chemicals for removal, necessitating the temporary relocation of residents. A review of the facility's housekeeping schedule and policies highlighted inconsistencies in cleaning practices. Although certain rooms were scheduled for deep cleaning, observations indicated that these tasks were not completed effectively. The facility's policies outlined specific cleaning and disinfection procedures, but the observed conditions in the residents' rooms suggested these protocols were not followed adequately. This failure to adhere to established cleaning standards contributed to the unsanitary conditions observed during the survey.
Failure to Complete Timely Quarterly MDS Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were completed in a timely manner for seven residents out of a sample of 33. During a review on June 27, 2024, it was found that there was no evidence of Quarterly MDS assessments for two residents. An interview with MDS Nurse J confirmed that the last MDS assessment for one resident was transmitted on January 15, 2024, with a quarterly assessment due on April 16, 2024, which was never opened. Similarly, for another resident, the last assessment was transmitted on February 15, 2024, with a quarterly assessment due on May 17, 2024, which was not completed. MDS Nurse J stated that the assessments were tracked using a 30-day electronic MDS scheduler report run each month. A review of this report showed that seven residents were overdue for quarterly assessments, indicating a failure to adhere to the facility's policy of conducting assessments no less than every three months.
Failure to Ensure Call Light Accessibility for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation for a resident by not ensuring that the call light was within reach at all times. Observations on multiple occasions revealed that the call light was clipped out of reach, preventing the resident from using it to request assistance. Interviews with staff confirmed that the resident was capable of using the call light and that it should have been within reach. The staff acknowledged that the call light was likely moved during care and not returned to an accessible position. The resident involved had a complex medical history, including chronic respiratory failure, malnutrition, and other conditions affecting mobility and self-care. Despite these challenges, the resident was able to use the call light to communicate needs. The facility's training materials and competency assessments emphasized the importance of keeping the call light within reach, yet this was not adhered to, as confirmed by photographic evidence and staff interviews.
Failure to Conduct Required Level II PASARR
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to obtain a Level II Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for a resident, which prevented the incorporation of necessary recommendations into the resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including anxiety, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder. A Level I PASARR was completed, but it did not include all relevant diagnoses, and a Level II PASARR was not conducted as required. The resident was initially exempt from a Level II due to a 30-day hospital discharge exemption, but the facility did not follow up to complete the Level II evaluation within the required timeframe. The Director of Nursing and the Director of Social Services were responsible for reviewing PASARRs for accuracy upon admission. However, they failed to ensure that a Level II screening was conducted for the resident, despite recognizing the need for it. The facility's policy required that if a Level II screening was indicated after admission, Social Services should coordinate with the appropriate agency to conduct the screening. This oversight resulted in the facility not adhering to its policy and federal/state guidelines for pre-admission screenings for residents with serious mental illness or intellectual disabilities.
Failure to Update Dialysis Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the care plan for a resident receiving dialysis treatment, which was identified during a survey. The resident, who was cognitively intact and receiving dialysis off-site three times a week, had a change in the dialysis port site from the left arm to the right upper chest. Despite this change, the care plan was not updated to reflect the new port site, as confirmed by the East Wing Unit Manager/LPN during an interview. The care plan still indicated the presence of an arteriovenous fistula in the left arm, which was no longer accurate. The resident's medical records showed that the port in the chest was noted as early as April 3, 2024, yet the care plan dated June 4, 2024, did not reflect this change. The facility's policy requires that care plans be updated based on changing resident needs and interventions, but this was not adhered to in this case. The failure to update the care plan could result in unmet resident needs and negatively impact the resident's health, as the care plan did not address the current dialysis access site.
Deficiency in ADL Care and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary services for activities of daily living (ADL) to two residents, resulting in poor grooming and personal hygiene. Resident #24, who is diabetic and dependent on staff for bathing and personal hygiene, was observed with unclean fingernails that had grown significantly. Despite expressing a desire to have his nails trimmed, there was no documentation of nail care being provided. The facility's process for documenting ADL care was inconsistent, as evidenced by the absence of shower forms for Resident #24, which were supposed to be completed by certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and reviewed by nurses. Resident #59, who is legally blind and has a right below-knee amputation, reported not receiving regular bed baths as preferred, and his nails were observed to be jagged and unclean. Despite his cognitive intactness and ability to communicate his preferences, there was a lack of documentation for the bed baths he received, and his nail care was neglected. The CNA responsible for his care confirmed the absence of documentation for recent bed baths and nail care, indicating a lapse in the facility's adherence to its own procedures for documenting ADL care. The facility's policy for nail care was not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the lack of documentation and the residents' reports of unmet ADL needs. The failure to maintain proper records and provide consistent care as per the residents' care plans contributed to the deficiency. The facility's procedures for ensuring ADL care, including nail trimming and bathing, were not followed, leading to the observed deficiencies in resident care.
Failure to Follow Physician's Orders for Oxygen Therapy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care to two residents, as observed during a survey. Resident #109 was consistently receiving oxygen at a flow rate of 1.5 liters per minute, despite a physician's order for 2 liters per minute. This discrepancy was noted over several days, and the resident's care plan indicated a need for continuous oxygen therapy due to chronic respiratory failure. The MDS assessment for this resident was also incorrectly coded, failing to reflect the use of oxygen therapy. Resident #18 was observed receiving oxygen at a flow rate higher than the physician's order of 2 liters per minute. The resident was receiving hospice care for end-stage congestive heart failure and had severe cognitive impairment. Despite the physician's order for oxygen at 2 liters per minute, the resident was observed receiving 2.5 to 3 liters per minute. This inconsistency was confirmed by an LPN who checked the electronic medical record and the flow meter. The facility's policy on oxygen therapy requires adherence to physician's orders, including specific guidelines for PRN orders. However, the facility failed to comply with these standards, as evidenced by the incorrect oxygen flow rates administered to the residents. This failure to follow physician's orders for oxygen therapy could negatively impact the residents' medical status and functional abilities.
Failure to Provide Medically-Related Social Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide medically-related social services to Resident #64, who was observed sitting in his wheelchair and expressed concerns about missed medical appointments and loss of financial and insurance benefits. The resident, who had a history of cerebral infarction, alcoholic cirrhosis, and other chronic conditions, had not seen a cardiologist or neurologist since his admission. He received a discharge notice for non-payment and was offered a temporary hotel stay, despite having no income or safe place to go. The resident's requests for financial assistance were not adequately addressed by the Social Services Director and Business Office Manager. The Business Office Manager stated that benefits were applied for but not approved due to the resident's external financial obligations. Medicaid covered his room and board, but he was denied financial benefits from another state agency. A notice from the Social Security Administration indicated that additional information was needed from the facility, which was not provided. The Business Office Manager claimed to have contacted the SSA but could not provide documentation or details of the communication. The resident was taken to the SSA office, where he walked in without his wheelchair, which was cited as a reason for denial of benefits. The Director of Nursing confirmed the discharge notice and stated that the facility could not meet the resident's financial needs. The resident had expressed concerns about transportation to medical appointments if discharged. The DON was unaware of any additional information requested by the SSA and could not confirm the last cardiologist visit, although the resident was seen during the survey. The resident had not seen a neurologist despite having conditions warranting such care. The facility's failure to provide necessary social services and medical follow-ups contributed to the deficiency.
Medication Error Rate Exceeds Acceptable Threshold
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, resulting in an 8% error rate during a survey. This deficiency involved a resident with congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. During medication administration, an LPN administered Torsemide incorrectly by giving only one tablet instead of the prescribed three tablets. Additionally, the LPN failed to instruct the resident to rinse and spit after administering Advair, as required by the physician's orders. These actions were not in accordance with the facility's medication administration policy, which mandates adherence to prescriber orders, including any specific instructions such as rinsing the mouth after inhalation of certain medications.
Failure to Employ Qualified Social Worker
Penalty
Summary
The facility, licensed for 180 beds, failed to employ a qualified social worker on a full-time basis. During a review of the personnel file for the Director of Social Services (DSS) L, it was found that there was no documentation verifying DSS L's credentials for the position. The Human Resources Director (HRD) provided documentation indicating that DSS L held a Bachelor of Science degree in Interdisciplinary Studies, which the HRD acknowledged was not valid for the role of Director of Social Services. The HRD confirmed that DSS L was hired as the DSS despite lacking the necessary credentials and that the facility did not have another individual staffed as the DSS. A phone interview with the educational institution revealed that DSS L's degree was from a program intended for missionary work, not social work or psychology, further confirming the lack of appropriate qualifications for the position.
Improper Cleaning and Disinfecting of Glucometer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent the development and transmission of infections by not properly cleaning and disinfecting a glucometer used for a resident during medication administration. An observation was made of an LPN cleaning the glucometer with an antibacterial wipe for only 30 seconds and placing it back in the pouch while still wet. During an interview, the LPN admitted to not knowing the exact duration required for wiping the glucometer or the necessary drying time before placing it back in the pouch, as per her training and the facility's policy. A review of the facility's Skills Competency Assessment and policy for Blood Glucose Monitoring and Disinfecting revealed that the glucometer should be cleaned and disinfected following a specific two-step process, including maintaining the surface wet for the manufacturer's recommended contact time. The Assure Prism Multi Blood Glucose Monitoring System instructions and the Super Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable Wipe Technical Data Bulletin specify that the surface must remain wet for two minutes to effectively remove blood-borne pathogens. The LPN's actions did not comply with these guidelines, leading to the deficiency.
Ineffective Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program, as evidenced by the presence of cockroaches and flying insects in resident rooms and the activities room. Observations on multiple occasions revealed live cockroaches in the activities room and gnats and a black fly in a resident's room on the East Wing. Photographic evidence was obtained to document these findings. Interviews with residents and staff confirmed the presence of pests, with one resident expressing frustration over the ineffective pest control measures, despite the facility's attempts to spray for pests. The facility's pest control program was compromised due to financial difficulties, as the facility filed for bankruptcy, leading to the contracted pest control company ceasing services due to unpaid bills. The last pest control service was provided on 05/30/2024, and the facility had not secured a new contract with another company at the time of the survey. The facility's policy and procedure for pest control, which includes maintaining a contract with a licensed exterminator and immediate reporting of pest sightings, was not effectively implemented, contributing to the deficiency.
Latest citations in Florida
Surveyors found that the facility failed to comply with 42 CFR 483.73(a) by not conducting the required annual review and update of its Emergency Preparedness (EP) plan. During record review, no documentation showed that the EP plan had been reviewed or updated within the past year, and the Administrator confirmed that the Emergency Management Plan had not been reviewed or revised as required.
Surveyors found that smoke/fire-rated enclosures were not properly maintained, with penetrations in smoke barriers in several general storage rooms across multiple smoke compartments. The Maintenance Director stated that insulation and fiberglass were used to pack and cover these holes but could not confirm that the materials were approved for fire-rated construction. Inspectors observed penetrations covered with fiberglass and noted a hole in one fiberglass panel in a storage room, resulting in a deficiency under NFPA 101 requirements for smoke barrier construction.
Surveyors found that fixed patient-care electrical equipment was not properly maintained or inspected in accordance with NFPA 99. In one room, a bedside remote had mismatched insulation and exposed wiring, and in another room, a call button receptacle had exposed low-voltage conductors. The Maintenance Director acknowledged both issues and reported that new bed remotes had been received but not yet installed.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment, with strong, persistent urine and feces odors noted throughout multiple halls and confirmed by staff. On two nursing units, hallways and resident rooms contained torn flooring, food debris, broken blinds, dirty and leaking toilets and sinks, rusted and corroded fixtures, missing outlet covers with oxygen concentrators plugged in, exposed light sockets, unmade and visibly soiled beds, and black, mold-like substances on walls and around toilet bases. Bathrooms had missing ceiling tiles, cracked door facings with brown stains, used briefs and torn toilet paper on floors, and toilets with brown or rust-like buildup. Outside, the patio and fencing area had broken and rotted railings, exposed rusted nails, fallen palm fronds, and overgrown vegetation, and the Administrator acknowledged the area was not safe for residents. Housekeeping and maintenance staff described daily cleaning and a work-order process, but the Maintenance Director reported being unaware of many of the observed issues, and the DON confirmed there was no specific environmental cleaning policy despite job descriptions and a general policy requiring a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment.
A resident exited the building through a bedroom window, walked off the property, and was observed and redirected by staff with assistance from law enforcement, who encountered the resident down the road and helped escort the resident back. The facility’s internal documentation lacked staff or witness statements and characterized the event as the resident remaining on facility grounds without injury. Despite the resident’s account, a police report, and a maintenance staff report confirming that the resident left the premises and that law enforcement responded, the DON did not report the incident to required state and federal agencies, even though the DON acknowledged that any incident involving law enforcement response must be reported.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and a history of stroke was repeatedly observed over several days in visibly soiled clothing and bedding, with a strong urine odor, despite stating multiple times that he had requested assistance with changing and hygiene. Documentation indicated he was independent with toileting and personal hygiene and only occasionally incontinent, but his care plan lacked detail on the level of assistance needed, while an LPN reported he actually required staff help with bathing, grooming, toileting, and care. Laundry practices involved leaving clean, labeled clothing bagged in the linen room for nursing staff to distribute rather than returning it directly to rooms, and the DON reported that staff were expected to round every two hours and as needed to keep residents clean and dry, although there were no written ADL or resident care policies in place.
Surveyors observed four full O2 cylinders on one nursing unit stored unsecured directly on the floor under a sign labeled "FULL CYLINDERS" instead of in a secured storage rack. The ADON confirmed the cylinders were full and should not be on the ground. Reference to NFPA 99 showed that freestanding cylinders must be protected from damage and properly chained or supported in a stand or cart. The DON and Maintenance Director both acknowledged that O2 cylinders are required to be stored in a secure rack, should never be on the floor, and that unsecured cylinders on the floor present a safety risk.
A resident with multiple cardiopulmonary conditions and a documented full code status was found unresponsive without pulse or respirations during the night shift. A CNA notified the RN, who either instructed CNAs to clean and cover the resident or, per her and an LPN’s account, called a code blue and performed CPR with the LPN for about 20 minutes before stopping, without calling 911. The RN believed the resident was on hospice and did not verify code status, then notified the DON, provider, and family instead of EMS. Several hours later, after the DON called the facility and asked whether 911 had been contacted, the RN called 911 and briefly reinitiated CPR shortly before EMS arrived and pronounced the resident deceased, documenting postmortem changes. The facility’s investigation and root cause analysis found that staff failed to follow policy requiring immediate EMS activation and continuous CPR for full code residents until EMS arrival, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding.
A resident with full code status was found unresponsive without respirations or pulse during the night shift. An RN and an LPN initiated CPR but did not activate EMS, and they discontinued CPR after about 20 minutes. The RN, who lacked documented orientation and competency assessment and had obtained BLS certification through a fully online, non–instructor-led course, pronounced the resident deceased without authority and later stated she believed the resident was on hospice and did not verify code status. The LPN’s BLS certification was expired, and a CNA with an expired BLS certification performed several chest compressions despite facility policy that CNAs were not to perform CPR. The RN had not participated in documented code blue drills, and leadership confirmed that required clinical orientation and skills competencies had not been completed for her, leading surveyors to determine that staff were not adequately trained or competent to respond to a cardiopulmonary arrest for a full code resident, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy finding.
Surveyors found multiple instances of improper use of relocatable power taps (RPTs) and extension cords during a facility tour with the Maintenance Director. In the social services office, an RPT was plugged into another RPT connected to a wall outlet, with the cord running across a walkway and taped to the floor. In the multipurpose room, a television was plugged into an extension cord, and in the MDS office, an RPT was plugged into another RPT with an outlet adapter in use. These conditions did not comply with NFPA 101, NFPA 99, and NFPA 70 standards governing electrical equipment, power strips, and extension cords.
Failure to Annually Review and Update Emergency Preparedness Plan
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s Emergency Preparedness (EP) Program under 42 CFR 483.73(a). During record review at 4:00 PM, surveyors examined the facility’s EP documentation and found no evidence that the emergency preparedness plan had been reviewed or updated on an annual basis as required. The regulation mandates that LTC facilities develop and maintain an emergency preparedness plan that is reviewed and updated at least annually to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local emergency preparedness requirements. In an interview, the Administrator acknowledged that the facility’s Emergency Management Plan had not been reviewed or updated. No documentation was provided to show that the required annual review and update of the EP plan had occurred. The deficiency is based solely on the lack of documented annual review and update of the emergency preparedness plan by facility administration; no specific resident cases or clinical events were described in the report.
Plan Of Correction
Preparation and/or execution of the Plan of Correction does not constitute admission or agreement of the provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusions set forth in the statement of deficiencies. The Plan of Correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provision of Federal and State law. Facility EP was reviewed and signed off on by the DON, Maintenance Director and Administrator. The facility has determined that all residents have the potential to be affected. An in-service education program will be conducted by the administrator. The administrator will conduct monthly random checks to verify completed documentation.
Improper Repair of Smoke Barrier Penetrations in Multiple Smoke Compartments
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s maintenance of smoke/fire-rated enclosures, specifically related to penetrations in smoke barriers in multiple smoke compartments. During an interview, the Maintenance Director reported that insulation was used to pack holes and then covered with fiberglass in general storage rooms in smoke compartments 1, 2, and 3, but was unable to confirm whether these materials were approved for use in fire-rated walls. Subsequent observation showed that the penetrations were indeed covered with fiberglass, and one general storage room in smoke compartment 2 had a hole in one of the fiberglass panels. The report states that this failure to properly maintain penetrations through smoke/fire-rated construction could allow smoke and flammable gases to spread to other areas and cause the smoke/fire-rated construction to fail to perform as designed.
Failure to Maintain and Inspect Patient-Care Electrical Equipment
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s compliance with NFPA 99 requirements for testing and maintaining fixed patient-care electrical equipment. During an observation in one resident room, the bedside remote was found to have two different types of insulation and exposed wiring. In another resident room, the call button receptacle was observed with exposed low-voltage conductors. These conditions were noted during a survey of two of six smoke compartments. During an interview conducted at the time of the observations, the Maintenance Director stated that the facility had just received a new shipment of bed remotes and had not yet replaced the existing ones. The Maintenance Director also acknowledged the issue with the exposed conductors at the call button receptacle. The surveyors cited this as a failure to properly inspect and maintain fixed patient care electrical equipment in accordance with NFPA 99 (2012 Edition), sections 10.3 and 10.5.2.1.
Widespread Odors and Environmental Disrepair in Resident Care Areas
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment as required by 42 CFR 483.10(i). Upon entrance to the building on multiple days, surveyors noted a strong, pungent odor of urine and feces throughout the facility, with the odor particularly strong on the 200, 300, and 400 halls. Staff interviews confirmed that the building "usually smells like" urine, and staff attributed the odor to residents defecating and urinating on the floor, an old building structure, and cleaning products that sanitize but do not deodorize. Housekeeping staff reported that they clean resident rooms daily but that nursing staff must first clean fecal and urine waste before housekeeping can sanitize, and delays by nursing staff in doing so postponed housekeeping’s ability to address the odors. On the 300 unit, surveyors observed multiple environmental and sanitation issues in resident rooms and bathrooms. The hallway had torn flooring, food particles, and a butter knife on the floor. Individual rooms had food debris, a straw on the floor, and broken blinds. Bathrooms contained dark brown stains on walls, rusted ceiling tile trim, toilets with brownish substances inside, and wet floors around toilets. Trim was missing around toilet bases, exposing a black, mold-like substance. Corroded and rusted sink faucet handles, leaking faucets, rusted pipes under sinks with buildup of corrosion, and rusted sprinklers were observed. Some toilets and three-in-one commodes had duct tape on them, and bathroom walls had black, mold-like substances. Doors and door facings showed rust, scrape marks, chipped and peeling paint, and exposed wood. In some rooms, electrical outlets had no covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them, boards covered windows, light fixtures over beds lacked covers with sockets exposed, and one fixture had only one bulb. A resident bed appeared dirty with a black substance on it, and dresser drawers were broken with drawer fronts on the floor. On the 400 unit, surveyors again noted a strong odor of urine upon entry and found additional environmental deficiencies. Bathrooms had missing ceiling tiles, broken emergency light covers with no pull strings, and toilet tank covers that did not fit properly, exposing the inside of the tank. In one bathroom, torn toilet paper and used briefs were lying in the corner of the floor, and toilets had brown, rust-like substances inside the bowls. Door facings appeared cracked with brown substances along the sides, and toilets had brownish-black buildup around the bases with broken, peeling trim. Light bases on walls had rust-like appearances, multiple rooms had broken or missing blinds, and some outlets lacked covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them. Some rooms had unmade beds, exposed wires at outlets, toilets with dark brown-black rings around the base and flooring, uncovered light fixtures, leaking sinks with rusted pipes, loose flooring, loose toilet seats, and dry red substances on door frames. Surveyors also observed deficiencies in the outdoor patio area adjacent to the locked unit. The gate code was broken, and a resident lock was placed on the gate. The patio and surrounding fencing had fallen palm fronds on the grass, broken and rotted wooden fence railings, unsteady railings, and multiple exposed rusted nails protruding from the railings where boards were broken or detached. Overgrown trees and bushes from the perimeter extended through the fence railings. When asked, the Administrator acknowledged that the area was not safe for residents and stated that they planned to have it redone in the future. The Maintenance Director reported that he and one other maintenance person relied on work orders and verbal reports to identify needed repairs and stated he was not aware of the specific room and equipment issues on the 300 and 400 units. Housekeeping staff stated they would report broken items via a work order book or text to maintenance, but one housekeeper, who cleaned the 400 unit daily, denied noticing stains or biohazard-like materials on walls and door frames despite the surveyors’ observations. Review of facility documents showed that the housekeeper job description required staff to maintain assigned work areas in a clean, safe, comfortable, and attractive manner and to report maintenance problems noted during cleaning. A facility policy titled "Policies and Practices - Control" stated that the facility must maintain a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for personnel, residents, visitors, and the public. The DON stated that blinds had been changed out and new cabinets and door handles purchased, and that staff were directed to use standard precautions when cleaning rooms, but also stated there was no policy specific to cleaning the environment. These observations and interviews demonstrated that the facility did not maintain sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior conditions, did not adequately control offensive odors, and did not ensure that the physical environment, including resident rooms, bathrooms, and outdoor areas, was maintained in a safe, clean, and homelike condition as required by regulation.
Failure to Report Elopement Incident Involving Law Enforcement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to report an elopement incident to required state and federal agencies as mandated by 42 CFR 483.12(c). On the referenced date, Resident #5 exited the building through his bedroom window around 12:15 PM and walked across the facility property toward the perimeter fence. A CNA observed the resident outside and called for assistance, after which staff redirected and escorted the resident back into the building and placed him on one-to-one supervision. The facility’s internal incident documentation noted the window exit and subsequent maintenance inspection of the window seals but did not include any staff or witness statements. The DON later stated that the resident never left facility grounds and was returned without injury, and therefore the incident was not considered reportable. However, interviews and external records showed that the resident did leave the facility premises and that law enforcement was involved. Resident #5 recalled being outside the facility, being brought back by staff and a “police man,” and being told by the officer not to leave again. A police report from the local police department confirmed an encounter with the resident outside the facility and that an officer assisted staff in escorting him back. Maintenance staff (Staff G) also reported that the resident climbed out the window, left the facility property, and was stopped “down the road,” then redirected back with law enforcement assistance. In interviews, the DON initially denied that law enforcement had been notified or involved, then later acknowledged that law enforcement had responded but asserted they did not come into the facility. The DON also confirmed awareness that any incident in which law enforcement investigates or responds is required to be reported, yet the elopement and law enforcement involvement were not reported to the State Survey Agency or other required officials within the required time frames.
Failure to Provide Timely ADL and Hygiene Care to a Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide necessary ADL care, including grooming and hygiene, to a dependent resident over multiple days. The resident was repeatedly observed in visibly soiled clothing with a strong odor of urine, first standing in his doorway holding onto a wheelchair with wet navy pants saturated down to his calves, stating he had been waiting for staff to change his clothes. More than an hour later the same day, he remained in the same soiled pants and shirt while seated in a wheelchair near the nurses’ station. The following day, he was again observed wearing the same soiled clothes, smelling of urine, with his shirt stained with food and a dark liquid. His room had a strong urine odor, his bed was soiled with urine, and only two pairs of pants were seen on a chair with no other clothing available in the room. On a subsequent observation, he was seated on the edge of his bed wearing different pants and no shirt, with yellow-stained sheets beneath him and his previously soiled clothes on the floor; he reported that he had requested assistance but no staff had come, so he changed himself. Record review showed the resident had a history of stroke and repeated unspecified conditions, with a recent Quarterly MDS indicating moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 10). The MDS documented him as independent for toileting, showering, personal hygiene, and related ADLs, and only occasionally incontinent, but his care plan did not specify the level of assistance he required for incontinence care and other ADLs. In contrast, an LPN familiar with the resident stated he required staff assistance with bathing, grooming, toileting, and care, and that he did not refuse such assistance and appropriately requested help. The LPN also explained that personal clothing was laundered at the facility and left bagged in the linen room for nursing staff to distribute, rather than being returned directly to resident rooms. The DON stated that staff were expected to follow best practices, including rounding every two hours and as needed to keep residents clean and dry, and acknowledged that all residents required some level of assistance with ADLs. The DON further stated the facility had no written ADL, resident care, or quality of care policies, despite these expectations.
Unsecured Storage of Full Oxygen Cylinders on Nursing Unit
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility failed to ensure safe storage of oxygen cylinders on the West 1 unit. At 9:03 a.m., four full oxygen cylinders were observed stored unsecured directly on the ground rather than in the designated secured cylinder storage rack, under a sign labeled "FULL CYLINDERS." Photographic evidence was obtained of this condition. At 9:18 a.m., the ADON confirmed that the four cylinders were full and acknowledged they should not be stored on the ground. Review of NFPA 99 (2021) 11.6.2.3(11) indicated that cylinders must be protected from damage and that freestanding cylinders must be properly chained or supported in a proper stand or cart. Later that day, the DON stated that oxygen cylinders should be stored in a secure rack and never directly on the ground, and acknowledged that unsecured cylinders on the floor were a safety risk. The Maintenance Director also confirmed that oxygen cylinders should be in a secure rack and never stored directly on the ground, stating that cylinders stored on the floor can tip over and cause damage. These observations and interviews demonstrated noncompliance with regulatory and NFPA standards for safe storage of oxygen cylinders.
Plan Of Correction
This plan of correction constitutes a written allegation of compliance for the deficiency cited. Submission of this plan of correction is not an admission that the deficiency exists or that one was cited correctly. This plan of correction is submitted to meet the requirements established by the State and Federal law. The four unsecured [R] cylinders on the West 1 unit were secured. The Nursing Department completed a baseline audit of [R] cylinder storage within the facility to ensure all [R] cylinders were secured and stored properly. Ongoing education will be completed with current facility staff regarding the facility's [R] storage policy and procedure; and will be completed during new hire and agency orientation to the facility by ADON/designee. Audits will be completed by the Director of Nursing/designee regarding adherence to the facility's [R] storage policy and procedure twice weekly x 4 weeks, then weekly x 4 weeks, then monthly x 4 months, or until continued substantial compliance has been met. Results of audits will be reported to the QAPI Committee on a monthly basis by the Director of Nursing/designee.
Failure to Provide Required CPR and Activate EMS for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide immediate and appropriate basic life support, including CPR, to a resident with a documented full code status when the resident was found unresponsive. The resident had diagnoses including a slow-progressing circulatory condition involving narrowing or blockage of vessels, a condition that restricts airflow and makes breathing difficult, and other listed conditions. The physician’s order specified “Full Code,” and the care plan documented that the resident was under court-ordered guardianship with wishes honored as full code. The facility’s policy required that in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, staff immediately call for assistance, overhead page a code, begin CPR in the absence of a valid DNR, and continue CPR until EMS assumes responsibility or the resident responds. On the night of the incident at approximately 2:00–2:07 a.m., a CNA found the resident unresponsive in bed and notified the RN on duty. One CNA’s written statement indicated that the RN said she already knew the resident was going to die and instructed the CNA to clean and cover the resident. Another CNA’s account stated that the RN came to the room, took vital signs, and then instructed her to clean the resident. The RN’s own written statement and interview indicated that she called a code blue, that an LPN brought the crash cart, and that they performed CPR for approximately 20 minutes. The LPN’s statement corroborated that a code blue was called, that he brought the crash cart, and that CPR was performed for about 20 minutes before the RN stopped and stated that the resident was gone or words to that effect. The RN acknowledged that the resident had no vital signs but was warm and not responding, and she stated that she believed the resident was on hospice and therefore did not call 911. After CPR was discontinued, the RN did not activate EMS and instead notified the DON, the provider, and the resident’s family. The DON documented receiving a message from the RN that the resident had no pulse and no blood pressure and that the assigned nurse had initiated CPR but was unable to revive the resident. The DON later received a text from the RN that the resident had expired. The DON stated that at approximately 6:00 a.m. she called the facility and asked if 911 had been called, and upon learning it had not, she instructed the RN to call 911. The RN then reinitiated CPR at around 6:00 a.m., approximately four hours after the resident was first found without pulse or respirations, and stated that they tried to do something until EMS arrived because EMS had to see them doing CPR. EMS records showed activation at 6:18 a.m., arrival at 6:27 a.m., and pronouncement of death at 6:31 a.m., with documentation that CPR was not attempted by EMS because it was considered futile and that the resident exhibited postmortem changes. The Medical Director confirmed that the resident was full code and stated that staff should have started CPR and called 911 and that CPR should not be done four hours after a resident is pronounced dead. The facility’s investigation and a root cause analysis concluded that the RN and LPN did not follow the facility’s established policy and procedure to call 911 and administer CPR to a full code resident until EMS arrival. The root cause was identified as the nurse’s belief that the resident was on hospice and her failure to check the resident’s code status as outlined in facility policy. The surveyors determined that the failure to immediately activate EMS and to continue CPR until EMS arrival for this full code resident constituted noncompliance with the requirement to provide basic life support and resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy determination.
Plan Of Correction
This plan of correction is submitted as required under Federal and State regulations and statutes applicable to long term care providers. This plan of correction does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the facility, and such liability is hereby specifically denied. The submission of this plan does not constitute agreement by the facility that the surveyors' findings or conclusions are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency, or that the scope or severity regarding any of these deficiencies cited are correctly applied. Resident #1 no longer resides in the facility as of 4.7.26. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. All codes to 1.1.26 were reviewed to ensure protocol was followed. No outliers were noted. All licensed nurses received education from the Director of Nursing and/or nursing management on [R] policy and procedure and Florida [R] policy. This includes where to find the code status. Education addressed what to do for full code hospice residents. Education completed with CNA's that protocol is that they do not assist with [R] or breaths during a [R] event. All education will be added to new hire orientation. Code drills will occur 3 x weekly x 4 weeks, followed by 2 x weekly x 4 weeks, followed by 1 x weekly x 4 weeks. Results will be brought to QAPI to determine need for ongoing auditing.
Removal Plan
- Educated licensed nurses on CPR policy and procedure and Florida Do Not Resuscitate (DNRO) policy, including where to find code status and what to do for full code hospice residents; emphasized initiating emergency services immediately when resident is full code, continuing CPR until EMS arrives, and that nurses cannot pronounce death or stop CPR on a full code resident unless instructed by EMS.
- Implemented emergency response “Code Blue” drills on all three shifts, including full code and full code hospice scenarios, with emphasis on calling 911 immediately.
- Educated licensed nurses and CNAs on the facility abuse and neglect policy, including resident rights.
- Required licensed nurses to complete a CPR post-test; restricted staff who have not completed education/testing from working until completion.
- Educated licensed nurses regarding change in condition.
- Placed laminated instructions on how to overhead page during a code at all nursing station phones and other designated phones.
- Held a Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review root cause analysis findings and approve recommendations.
- Held a Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review progress of the plan and approve recommendations.
- Completed a “like resident” audit of all expired residents and rehospitalizations for a defined period to determine whether involved staff were the same as the code event and whether proper procedure was followed.
Failure to Provide Competent CPR Response and Verify Code Status for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that nursing staff possessed and demonstrated the competencies required to respond appropriately to a cardiopulmonary emergency for a resident with full code status. Resident #1, who was designated as full code, was found unresponsive and without respirations or pulse at approximately 2:07 a.m. Clinical staff, consisting of an RN (Staff A) and an LPN (Staff B), initiated CPR but did not activate Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as required by facility policy for a full code resident. After approximately 20 minutes of CPR, the RN and LPN stopped resuscitation efforts without EMS involvement. The RN, without authority to do so, pronounced the resident deceased based on the absence of vital signs and did not verify the resident’s code status before discontinuing CPR. The RN later stated she believed the resident was on hospice and therefore did not call 911, and that she was confused about which residents were hospice and which were full code. The LPN reported that he assumed the RN had called 911 and continued CPR for about 20 minutes until the RN “called the code” and left, and he acknowledged that he knew CPR should continue until EMS arrival but did not speak up. Four hours after CPR was stopped, at approximately 6:00 a.m., the RN restarted CPR and activated EMS after receiving instructions from the DON. The investigation further identified that the RN had no documented orientation, onboarding education, or skills competency assessments since hire, despite being promoted to weekend supervisor. Her BLS certification had been obtained through a fully online course without an instructor or live feedback. The LPN’s BLS certification was expired, and a CNA who performed several chest compressions also had an expired BLS certification, even though facility policy did not permit CNAs to perform CPR. Facility records showed that monthly code blue drills had been conducted, but there was no documentation that the RN had ever participated in these drills. Leadership interviews confirmed that required clinical orientation and competency evaluations had not been completed for the RN, and that she had failed tests for a clinical manager position but was nonetheless functioning in a supervisory role. These actions and omissions led surveyors to determine that staff were not adequately trained or competent to respond to cardiopulmonary arrest for residents with full code status, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy determination. The facility’s own root cause analysis, as reflected in meeting minutes, identified that the nurse did not check the resident’s code status and lacked knowledge about when CPR could be discontinued and when 911 should be called. The analysis documented that the nurse believed the resident was hospice and therefore did not start or continue CPR appropriately or call EMS when the resident was found without respirations and pulse. The facility assessment tool and policies referenced the need for staff training and competencies in identifying changes in condition, end-of-life care, advance care planning, and adherence to the CPR policy, but the documented events showed that these expectations were not met in practice for the staff involved in this incident. Surveyors concluded that the failure to ensure nursing staff were trained and competent to respond appropriately to cardiopulmonary arrest for a full code resident, including immediate initiation and continuation of CPR and activation of EMS, constituted noncompliance with requirements for sufficient and competent nursing staff. The failure affected Resident #1 and placed other full code residents at risk, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding that was later reduced in scope and severity after verification of an acceptable Immediate Jeopardy removal plan.
Plan Of Correction
This plan of correction is submitted as required under Federal and State regulations and statutes applicable to long term care providers. This plan of correction does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the facility, and such liability is hereby specifically denied. The submission of this plan does not constitute agreement by the facility that the surveyors' findings or conclusions are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency, or that the scope or severity regarding any of these deficiencies cited are correctly applied Resident # 1 no longer resides in the facility as of 4.7.26. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. All licensed nurses were audited to ensure current [R] certification. Facility will ensure [R] certification through a [R] provider whose training includes a [R] on session either in a physical or virtual instructor-led setting in accordance with accepted national standards. Human resources, or designee, will audit monthly to ensure all licensed nurses have a current [R] certification.Education was completed with licensed nurses on initiating [R] services immediately when a resident is full code. Education included that [R] is to continue on a full code resident until [R] arrives and that the nurse cannot pronounce [R] on the full code resident and/or stop [R] until instructed by [R].Education will be added to new hire orientation.7 random licensed nurses will complete a knowledge quiz related to code events. Per week x 4 weeks, followed by 5 nurses x 4 weeks, then 3 nurses x 4 weeks. Results will be brought to QAPI to determine need for ongoing auditing.
Removal Plan
- Regional Director of Clinical Services educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing regarding the CPR policy and the need to immediately contact emergency medical services (911) in the event of a full code; Administrator and DON signed the education
- Regional Director of Clinical Services provided documented education to the Administrator and Director of Nursing regarding the CPR policy and the need to immediately contact emergency medical services (911) in the event of a full code
- Director of Nursing and/or nursing management educated all licensed nurses on the CPR policy and procedure, including where to find code status and what to do for full code hospice residents
- Reinforced through education that CPR must be initiated immediately for full code residents, continued until EMS arrives, and that nurses cannot pronounce death or stop CPR on a full code resident unless instructed by EMS
- Conducted an Ad Hoc Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review root cause analysis recommendations related to the incident; recommendations approved
- Conducted a follow-up Ad Hoc Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review progress on the plan; recommendations approved
Improper Use of Power Strips and Extension Cords in Multiple Facility Areas
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified deficiencies related to the use and maintenance of relocatable power taps (RPTs) and extension cords that did not comply with NFPA 101, NFPA 99, and NFPA 70 requirements. During a facility tour conducted between 11:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. with the Maintenance Director, surveyors observed in the social services office an RPT plugged into another RPT, which was then plugged into a wall outlet, with the cord running across a walkway and taped to the floor. In the multipurpose room, a television was found plugged into an extension cord, contrary to standards that prohibit using extension cords as a substitute for fixed wiring and require temporary extensions to be removed immediately after use. Further observations included the MDS office, where an RPT was plugged into another RPT and an outlet adapter was in use. These configurations did not meet the NFPA 99 provisions governing the proper use of power strips and extension cords, including requirements that power strips be appropriately rated and used only as intended, and that extension cords not be used as permanent wiring. During concurrent interviews, the Maintenance Director acknowledged these findings as they were observed by the surveyors.
Plan Of Correction
The RPT observed plugged into an RPT plugged into an outlet in the Social Services Office was removed. The extension cord used to plug in the television in the multipurpose room was removed. The RPT plugged into an RPT and outlet adapter in the MDS office was removed. Additional offices and resident care areas will be reviewed for the improper use of plug adapters, power strips and extension. The Executive Director/designee will educate the Maintenance Director on the importance of NFPA 101 Electrical Equipment- Power and Extension specific to the improper use of plug adapters, power strips, and extension and will continue to monitor in accordance with NFPA standards. Any findings will be reported to the monthly QAPI Committee for further review. The RPT observed plugged into an RPT plugged into an outlet in the Social Services Office was removed. The extension cord used to plug in the television in the multipurpose room was removed. The RPT plugged into an RPT and outlet adapter in the MDS office was removed. Additional offices and resident care areas will be reviewed for the improper use of plug adapters, power strips and extension. The Executive Director/designee will educate the Maintenance Director on the importance of NFPA 101 Electrical Equipment - Power and Extension specific to the improper use of plug adapters, power strips, and extension and will continue to monitor in accordance with NFPA standards. Any findings will be reported to the monthly QAPI Committee for further review.
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.



