Casa Mora Rehabilitation And Extended Care
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Bradenton, Florida.
- Location
- 1902 59th St W, Bradenton, Florida 34209
- CMS Provider Number
- 105327
- Inspections on file
- 21
- Latest survey
- February 7, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 8 (3 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Casa Mora Rehabilitation And Extended Care during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program when a resident with dermatologist-documented scabies instructions did not receive the ordered anti-parasitic regimen as directed, including a missed Ivermectin dose that was not rescheduled and a treatment schedule that did not match the dermatologist’s written Permethrin plan. The same resident’s room was posted with Enhanced Barrier Precautions rather than clearly implemented contact precautions as outlined in facility policy. Surveyors also observed multiple rooms posted for contact or enhanced barrier precautions without PPE available at the doorway, staff who could not explain why residents were on contact precautions, and an Activity Director entering a contact-precaution room and having direct resident contact without gown or gloves, reflecting inconsistent understanding and application of transmission-based precautions and PPE use.
A resident with chronic pain, hemiplegia, and a history of opioid abuse alleged that a CNA befriended her, obtained her bank card and PIN, and received thousands of dollars via withdrawals and mobile payments to purchase prepaid money cards, while also allegedly using those cards to buy THC gummies they consumed together. The resident reported the missing money to the prior NHA and SSD and involved her POA and police, but the facility’s investigation only confirmed money transfers and the CNA’s admission to receiving funds for prepaid cards, without probing the purpose of the cards or the alleged THC use. The CNA acknowledged that, as staff, she should not have taken money from the resident, and the medical director stated staff should not provide THC to residents, yet the prior investigation did not document the drug-use allegation or required notifications, contrary to the facility’s Abuse Prevention Program policy requiring a complete and thorough investigation of exploitation and misappropriation.
The facility failed to properly document and maintain Advance Directives and DNR orders for three residents, resulting in missing or incomplete DNR forms, conflicting code status documentation, and lack of required signatures. These deficiencies led to confusion among staff and emergency responders regarding residents' wishes during medical emergencies.
The facility failed to properly honor and document advance directives for three residents, resulting in one resident with a DNR preference receiving CPR after staff did not provide the required signed DNR form to EMS, and two other residents having conflicting or incomplete code status documentation in their medical records. Staff interviews confirmed breakdowns in the process for verifying, updating, and filing code status orders, leading to confusion and failure to follow residents' wishes.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and a history of wandering exited the facility unsupervised by following another resident through a door that was remotely opened by staff. The door alarm was triggered but disabled by another resident who knew the code, and no staff were present to respond. The resident was found several hours later by law enforcement and returned to the facility. The incident was not documented in the facility's abuse/neglect or incident logs, and staff failed to provide adequate supervision or respond to the alarm.
The facility did not adhere to its grievance policy, as several residents reported that their filed grievances were not investigated or followed up on, and staff interviews confirmed there was no consistent process or designated person for ensuring residents were informed about the status or resolution of their concerns.
Surveyors found that two residents had medications left unsecured in their rooms, including a discontinued skin cream and an active prescription cream. Additionally, prescription medications and an unlocked treatment cart were left unattended at a nurses' station with residents nearby. Staff interviews confirmed that no residents were authorized for self-administration of medications, and facility policy requires all medications to be secured and accessible only to authorized personnel. These requirements were not followed, resulting in unsecured medications in resident and common areas.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and a history of wandering exited the facility without proper supervision or following the sign-out process, despite having an electronic wander bracelet and being identified as an elopement risk. Staff did not respond to the triggered alarm, and the incident was not documented or reported as required, constituting a failure to report suspected neglect.
Failure to Implement Effective Scabies Treatment and Transmission-Based Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, specifically in the management of scabies treatment and the use of transmission-based precautions and PPE. One resident with a dermatology-confirmed need for scabies treatment had handwritten dermatologist instructions dated 2/4/26 directing treatment for scabies with Permethrin 5% cream, to be applied from neck down overnight and repeated in one week, with isolation from other residents until the second treatment was completed. However, the physician orders in the facility record instead reflected an order for oral Ivermectin 3 mg tablets, three tablets by mouth once daily for five days for crusted dermatitis, starting 2/5/26. The MAR showed the first Ivermectin dose scheduled for 2/5/26 at 9:00 a.m. with subsequent doses scheduled every five days rather than daily, and the first dose was not administered, documented with a code indicating the medication was awaiting delivery. Staff interviews confirmed that the missed dose was not rescheduled, meaning the resident would receive only four of the five ordered doses. Pharmacy delivery schedules indicated the medication, ordered at 9:54 p.m. on 2/4/26, should have been available in the early morning delivery window on 2/5/26. The facility’s own scabies management policy, effective August 2025, required implementation of contact precautions when scabies was suspected, use of gowns and gloves during close contact, obtaining and applying ordered treatment as directed, maintaining contact precautions and encouraging the resident to remain in the room for 24 hours post-treatment, and retreatment one week later. The policy also noted that symptoms may take weeks to develop and that transmission between treatments is possible. Despite this, the resident’s room was posted with Enhanced Barrier Precautions signage rather than clear contact precautions, and the treatment regimen ordered and scheduled did not align with the dermatologist’s written instructions for Permethrin topical therapy and repeat treatment in one week. Staff interviews revealed confusion about medication availability from the emergency drug kit and the process for handling unavailable medications, as well as differing understandings of pharmacy delivery times. Additional deficiencies were identified in the implementation of transmission-based precautions and PPE availability for other residents on precautions. Observations on 2/7/26 showed rooms posted with both Contact and Enhanced Barrier Precautions signs without PPE stored at the entrance. An LPN could not locate orders supporting contact precautions for two residents and was unsure about the posted precautions, while the CNA assigned to those residents did not know why they were on contact precautions. Another observation found the Activity Director entering and having direct contact with a resident in a room posted for contact precautions without wearing any PPE; PPE was not available outside the room, and the Activity Director initially believed only hand hygiene was required when not providing hands-on care. After re-reading the sign, the Activity Director acknowledged that gown and gloves should have been worn. The DON and RN later confirmed that staff should wear PPE when entering rooms posted for contact precautions, that PPE should be placed outside such rooms, and that nurses should know what type of precautions residents are on. A CNA interview also showed misunderstanding of the differences between Enhanced Barrier Precautions and Contact Precautions, including incorrect statements about required PPE components.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Alleged Financial Exploitation and Drug-Related Misconduct
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property involving one cognitively intact resident. The resident, who had diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, chronic pain syndrome, and opioid abuse with intoxication, reported that a CNA befriended her and began taking money from her. She stated she gave the CNA approximately $5,000 or more, including funds for prepaid money cards, and that the CNA still owed her $1,000 for a prepaid card that was never purchased. The resident reported that the CNA had her bank card PIN and would withdraw money from the bank, and that she had informed the previous NHA and SSD about the missing money and reported it to the police, with her POA handling the investigation. The resident further alleged that the CNA used the prepaid cards to buy THC-containing adult gummies for both of them, which they would share each morning, with the CNA advising her on potency and whether to take a half or whole gummy. The allegation of THC use was not documented in the facility’s prior investigation. During interviews, the current NHA and RM acknowledged that the resident had reported giving the CNA her bank card to shop for her and that, during their investigation, they obtained bank statements from the POA confirming that money had been sent to the CNA via a mobile money app. The RM stated that the CNA admitted receiving money to buy prepaid money cards totaling $4,570 but denied knowing why the resident needed them, and the RM admitted never asking the resident about the purpose of the cards, despite later acknowledging that the allegation of drug use would make sense in that context. The CNA confirmed there was money exchanged between her and the resident, that she purchased prepaid money cards worth hundreds of dollars, and that the resident wrote her checks for $500 more than once. She admitted that, as a staff member, she should not have taken money from the resident and that it was against policy, but denied purchasing THC gummies. The medical director stated that staff should not provide a resident with THC and that any such use should be evaluated and monitored by a provider. The facility’s Abuse Prevention Program policy defined exploitation/misappropriation of resident property and required that the NHA or designee initiate and conclude a complete and thorough investigation, including resident and employee interviews, document review, and other investigative steps. The report shows that the facility’s prior investigation did not include inquiry into the alleged THC use, did not document notifications to outside agencies, and did not fully explore the exploitation and misappropriation concerns as required by policy, resulting in a failure to thoroughly investigate the allegations for this resident.
Failure to Properly Document and Maintain Advance Directives and DNR Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Advance Directives, specifically Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, were properly documented and maintained in the medical records for three residents. For one resident, there was no signed DNR Form DH1896 in the medical record, despite the resident returning from the hospital with a DNR status. Staff interviews revealed that although the change in code status was discussed and a verbal order was received, the required DNR form was never completed or signed by the appropriate parties, nor was it placed in the resident's chart. As a result, when the resident experienced a medical emergency, EMS was not provided with the valid DNR documentation, leading to the initiation of CPR against the resident's wishes as indicated by the verbal order and hospital documentation. Another resident's medical record contained both a full code order and a signed DNR Form DH1896, creating confusion regarding the resident's actual code status. Staff were observed to be uncertain about the resident's current status when reviewing the chart, as both orders were present and not properly updated. This improper documentation could have led to inappropriate interventions during a medical emergency. A third resident's DNR Form DH1896 was found to be incomplete, as it was signed by the provider but not by the resident or their representative, rendering the form invalid. Staff confirmed that the resident was capable of signing the form but was not asked to do so upon admission. The facility's policy required proper documentation and verification of Advance Directives, but these procedures were not followed, resulting in discrepancies and lack of clarity in residents' code status documentation.
Removal Plan
- A whole house audit was completed regarding advance directives and two identified variances were corrected.
- One code status was updated in the medical record, and it is clear to staff of the resident wishes and one next of kin validated the resident's advance directives with a signature.
- The Regional Nurse Consultant educated the clinical management team to the Code Status Response Policy.
- Licensed Nurses were educated by the Director of Nursing and the facility clinical administration team on Code Status Response Policy.
- The morning clinical worksheet was updated.
- ADHOC Quality Assurance meeting was conducted to review the removal plan including the medical director.
Failure to Honor and Document Advance Directives and Code Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that advance directives were honored and properly documented in the medical records for three residents reviewed for code status. One resident, who had a documented preference for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status, was found unresponsive by staff and subsequently received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) both at the facility and during transport to the emergency room. Staff did not inform the Emergency Medical Team (EMT) of the resident's DNR status, and the required signed DNR Form DH1896 was not present in the resident's chart or provided to EMS. Interviews with staff revealed that although the resident returned from the hospital with a DNR order, the process to complete and file the official DNR form was not followed, and the form was never signed or placed in the chart. As a result, EMS initiated full resuscitation efforts, which were continued in the emergency department. Further review of two additional residents' records revealed similar documentation failures. One resident's chart contained both a full code order and a signed DNR form, leading to confusion about the resident's actual code status. Another resident's DNR form was signed by the provider but not by the resident or their representative, rendering the form invalid. Staff interviews confirmed that the process for verifying, documenting, and updating code status orders was inconsistently followed, and that required forms were either missing, incomplete, or not properly filed in the residents' medical records. The facility's policy required that code status and advance directives be verified on admission, documented in the medical record, and that the appropriate state-specific forms be completed and placed at the front of the resident's chart. However, the observed failures included lack of timely completion and filing of DNR forms, lack of communication with families or responsible parties to confirm code status changes, and the presence of conflicting orders in the medical record. These actions and inactions resulted in residents' wishes regarding resuscitation not being honored and created confusion among staff during emergency situations.
Removal Plan
- A house wide audit was completed verifying advanced directives and two identified variances were corrected. One code status was updated in the medical record, and it is clear to staff of the resident wishes and one next of kin validated the resident's advance directives with a signature.
- Regional Nurse Consultant provided education to 100% of the clinical management team related to Advanced Directives.
- Licensed Nurses were educated by the Director of Nursing and the facility clinical administration team related to Advanced Directives, reviewing AD/CS orders, process for completing a DNR order and honoring a resident choice, code blue process and placement of code status in resident hard chart at 97%.
- The Regional President completed the Essential Core Functions: Resident care and Quality of Life, Human Resources, Physical Environment and Atmosphere and Leadership and Management with the Nursing Home Administrator.
- The Director of Risk Management completed the Essential Core Functions: Resident Care and Quality of Life, Human Resources, Physical Environment and Atmosphere and Leadership and Management with the Director of Nursing.
- Code Blue drills started and completed each shift.
- ADHOC Quality Assurance meeting was conducted to review the removal plan including the medical director.
Failure to Prevent Elopement Due to Inadequate Supervision and Alarm Response
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with a history of cognitive impairment, mild dementia, and alcohol use disorder exited the facility without staff knowledge or appropriate supervision. The resident, who was assessed as being at risk for elopement and had an electronic wander bracelet in place, was able to leave the facility by following another resident out the door, which was remotely opened by staff. The door alarm was triggered but subsequently disabled by another resident who knew the code, and no staff were present in the reception area to respond to the alarm or monitor the exit. The resident walked approximately 0.2 miles to a nearby hospital and was returned to the facility by law enforcement several hours later. Prior to the incident, the resident had demonstrated behaviors such as wandering, confusion, and expressing a desire to leave the facility. Documentation showed that the resident had a BIMS score indicating moderate cognitive impairment and was independently mobile with a walker. Staff and family interviews confirmed the resident's history of confusion, exit-seeking behavior, and lack of safety awareness. On the day of the incident, staff failed to provide adequate supervision, did not respond to the exit alarm, and allowed a situation where residents could access and disable the alarm system due to unsecured door codes. The facility's records revealed that the elopement was not documented in the abuse/neglect log or the incident and accident report. Staff interviews indicated a lack of awareness and response to the alarm, and video evidence confirmed that no staff were present in the area at the time of the exit. The resident's care plan included interventions for elopement risk, but these were not effectively implemented, resulting in the resident leaving the facility unsupervised and unnoticed for an extended period.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was put on enhanced supervision and then moved to the secure unit.
- An audit was completed by the DON and the facility's clinical administration team for current residents to ensure accuracy of assessment for cognition and mobility.
- Identified variances were corrected regarding LOA status.
- Staff were educated on the policy and procedures related to resident supervision, following procedures for residents leaving the facility for leave of absence, as well as the facility unauthorized exit protocols.
- Staff were educated by the DON and the facility clinical administration team on the door code process and the process to report unauthorized knowledge of the facility door codes.
- The remote door releases were deactivated.
- Code Silver drills were completed every shift.
- Random audits were completed regarding unauthorized exit, resident LOA status, and resident elopement risk.
- Ad hoc QA meeting was conducted to review the removal plan, which included the medical director.
Failure to Follow Grievance Policy and Ensure Resident Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its established grievance policies and procedures for investigating and following up on resident grievances for five out of six sampled residents. Multiple residents reported that after filing grievances, the facility did not provide follow-up or resolution. One resident stated that grievances regarding being awoken by a CNA and missing items were never addressed, while two other residents reported that their joint grievance about staff not distributing water and using personal phones during care remained unresolved, with no staff discussing the issues with them. Another resident indicated that grievances from a previous month had not been resolved or followed up on, and a fifth resident confirmed that his grievance had not been addressed or followed up by staff. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity and consistency in the grievance follow-up process. The social services staff member interviewed stated that follow-up depended on the specific situation and confirmed that there was no designated person responsible for ensuring residents were informed about the status or resolution of their grievances. This lack of a clear process resulted in residents not being updated or assured that their concerns were being addressed. A review of the facility's grievance policy showed that it requires prompt efforts to resolve concerns, documentation of resident satisfaction upon completion of investigations, and clear assignment of responsibility for follow-up. Despite these requirements, the facility did not ensure that grievances were investigated, resolved, or communicated back to the residents, as evidenced by the residents' statements and staff interviews.
Failure to Secure and Properly Store Medications
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors observed that medications and biologicals were not properly stored and secured for two residents. One resident had a tube of discontinued zinc oxide paste skin cream on the bedside table, which had been brought from the hospital and remained in the room after discontinuation. Another resident had a tube of Betamethasone Valerate cream on the windowsill, and the resident was unsure if the medication belonged to them. Review of the electronic health record confirmed that the zinc oxide was discontinued and the Betamethasone Valerate cream was an active prescription for dermatitis. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and nursing staff confirmed that there were no residents authorized for self-administration of medication (SAM) at the time of the survey. Staff reported that any medications found in resident rooms should be returned to the pharmacy and that they follow procedures for reporting and securing misplaced medications. The facility policy also discourages residents and visitors from bringing medications into the facility. Additional observations revealed unsecured medications at the 200 hall nurses' station. Prescription medications and an unlocked treatment cart containing prescription drugs were left unattended and out of staff sight, with residents nearby. Facility policies require that medications be stored securely, with medication carts locked when not in use and medications accessible only to authorized personnel. These policies were not followed, resulting in medications being left unsecured in resident areas and at the nurses' station.
Failure to Report Elopement Incident and Lack of Supervision
Penalty
Summary
A resident with a history of encephalopathy, generalized anxiety disorder, mild cognitive impairment, and alcohol use was identified as being at risk for elopement, as documented in their care plan and supported by multiple assessments indicating moderate cognitive impairment and wandering behaviors. The resident had an electronic wander bracelet in place and was subject to interventions such as a leave of absence (LOA) with escort and daily monitoring of the wander device. Despite these measures, the resident exited the facility without following the proper sign-out process, after another resident requested the door be opened by a CNA. The wander guard alarm was triggered but staff did not respond, and it was unclear who silenced the alarm. The resident was found outside the facility by law enforcement and returned unharmed. The incident was not documented in the facility's abuse/neglect log or incident and accident reports for the relevant period. Interviews with staff revealed that the CNA who opened the door did not see the resident leave and did not hear the alarm. Other staff members reported that the resident had exhibited exit-seeking behaviors earlier in the day, and this information had been communicated to nursing staff. The resident's care plan and assessments consistently identified elopement risk, and interventions were in place, but the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and response to the alarm system. Despite the resident's known risk factors and the occurrence of an unauthorized exit, the facility did not report the incident as required. The Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing stated that they did not consider the event reportable, as they believed the resident was alert, oriented, and not in harm's way. However, the facility's own policies define neglect as the failure to provide necessary services to avoid harm, and require reporting of such incidents. The lack of documentation and reporting of the elopement constituted a failure to comply with regulatory requirements for timely reporting of suspected neglect.
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.



