Eagleridge Health And Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Fort Myers, Florida.
- Location
- 13881 Eagle Ridge Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33912
- CMS Provider Number
- 106020
- Inspections on file
- 26
- Latest survey
- April 23, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 9 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Eagleridge Health And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two residents experienced inappropriate and poorly managed discharges. One resident with acute PE, acute respiratory failure, DM2, affective disorder, and Parkinson’s disease was discharged to an ALF with transportation arranged through an outside company, but the transport request was later canceled and not confirmed by staff. After being moved from her room to an activities area and repeatedly told her ride was coming, she left the building in her wheelchair without staff awareness and was later found on the roadside and taken to the ED. Another resident with degenerative disc disease, DM2 due to other mental disorder, and adjustment disorder was transferred to another nursing home without a documented medical reason, without a 30‑day written notice, and with a discharge order lacking reason, level of care, or assistance needs. He reported being told he would be evicted if he did not choose a facility, refused to sign the transfer notice, and ultimately was sent to a different nursing home than the one he chose, later having to arrange and pay for his own transportation after the receiving facility would not take him back.
A resident who had prepaid for services was discharged with a credit balance of $7,582.31 due back after copays were applied, but the facility did not refund the full amount within the required 30 days. The business office confirmed the resident had prepaid $11,067.31 and acknowledged that the facility’s refund turnaround time was about 30–60 days. Documentation showed two partial refund checks totaling $5,123.31 were sent, leaving $2,459.00 still owed to the resident beyond the 30-day timeframe, contrary to federal requirements and the facility’s own policy.
A resident with chronic kidney disease, recent digestive surgery aftercare, and a nephrostomy tube, who required maximal assist for transfers and used a wheelchair, was being transported by a CNA-driver for follow-up care and subsequent ER evaluation. Instead of proceeding directly to the ER, the CNA-driver diverted to a personal dental appointment, parked the facility van in an unshaded area, turned the engine off, and left the resident strapped in the wheelchair in the back of the van without supervision. The van’s doors and windows were largely closed, it became very hot inside, and the resident, who remained cognitively intact, called 911 reporting she was locked in and getting warm. Police and Fire Department responders found the non-running van with only a slightly open door and one window down, noted the resident was visibly sweating, and removed her from the vehicle. The facility’s own policies prohibited leaving residents unattended in vehicles and required continuous supervision during transport, but these were not followed, resulting in a finding of neglect and Immediate Jeopardy.
Two residents with intact cognition experienced unsafe and inappropriate discharges when the facility failed to confirm and document transportation, ensure supervision until departure, provide proper notice, and accurately document reasons and destinations for transfer. One resident with multiple serious medical conditions waited for hours for a ride that had been canceled by the transport company, then left the building in a wheelchair without staff awareness and was later found on the roadside and taken to the ER by EMS before being sent to an ALF. Another resident with diabetes, spinal disc degeneration, insomnia, and depressive disorders was told he had to choose a new facility or be evicted, was not given a 30‑day written notice, refused to sign the transfer form, and was discharged without a documented medical reason to a different nursing home than the one he reported choosing, later incurring personal costs and housing instability after the receiving facility would not readmit him post‑hospitalization.
A cognitively intact LTC resident with multiple medical and mental health diagnoses was discharged to another nursing home without receiving the required 30‑day written notice for a non-emergency transfer. The physician’s discharge order lacked a documented reason, level of care, or assistance needs, and the transfer notice stated the resident’s health had improved so facility services were no longer needed, which the resident refused to sign. The resident reported being told he would be evicted if he did not choose among three placement options and that his room was needed for a different type of care, and he was ultimately sent to a different facility than the one he selected. Facility staff acknowledged that only an undocumented verbal notice of about three weeks was given, that there was no medical reason for the transfer, and that the move was related to the facility’s transition to more short-term beds, with the receiving facility not offering higher-level services.
The facility did not follow its own policy requiring that any credit balance on a private account be refunded within 30 days once all payers are settled. A resident who had prepaid for services was discharged with a substantial credit balance due back. The Business Office Manager confirmed the prepaid amount and the total overpayment owed, and stated that the facility’s refund turnaround time is about 30–60 days. Records showed that only partial refunds were issued over several months, and a significant portion of the refund remained unpaid well beyond the required timeframe, resulting in the resident not receiving the full amount owed in a timely manner.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of falls experienced multiple falls and significant injuries due to inadequate supervision and unclear implementation of a fall prevention plan. Despite having a care plan, the resident continued to fall, resulting in a right hip fracture and a right humerus fracture. The facility's documentation and staff interviews revealed gaps in supervision, with no clear definition of frequent rounds, contributing to the resident's repeated falls.
Failure to Ensure Safe and Properly Planned Discharges for Two Cognitively Intact Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide safe, appropriate, and properly planned discharges for two cognitively intact residents, resulting in noncompliance with federal requirements for transfer, discharge, and discharge planning. For the first resident, who had diagnoses including acute pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory failure, type 2 diabetes, unspecified affective disorder, and Parkinson’s disease without dyskinesia, the facility arranged same-day transportation through an outside transport company to return the resident to an assisted living facility (ALF). The Social Services Director documented that transportation was scheduled for late afternoon, but the clinical record did not contain documentation of the actual pickup date and time. The transport company later reported that the request was canceled because it did not meet their required notice time. The resident was removed from her room and placed in the activities room to wait, and staff repeatedly told her that transportation was on the way. As the day progressed, key administrative staff left the building while the resident continued to wait. The ADON reported that when he left around early evening, the resident was at the nurse’s station asking about her ride, and he told her that the ALF was coming to pick her up. He later received text messages from an RN indicating that the resident was upset and wanted to leave, followed by another message that she had left. The NHA stated that staff assumed the resident had left with her ride, even though no one actually saw her get into a vehicle. The resident reported that she had been waiting for transportation for several hours, that “the big wigs left,” and that the night nurses did not know what to do with her. She stated she eventually pushed open the door and left the facility in her wheelchair without staff awareness. She described self-propelling in the road, not knowing the route to her ALF, and being found on the side of the street by passersby who called 911. An ER physician note documented that she reported waiting all day, becoming tired of waiting, leaving, and being found on the side of the street in her wheelchair before being transported to the ER. For the second resident, who had diagnoses including degenerative disc disease, type 2 diabetes due to other mental disorder, and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, the facility discharged him to another nursing home in a different county without a documented medical reason that met regulatory criteria for transfer or discharge. A psychiatric progress note described the resident as unstable with episodes of agitation related to situational concerns about being transferred to a new nursing home. The discharge summary indicated he was being discharged to another nursing home, and a discharge order was entered without specifying the reason for transfer, level of care, or assistance needed. The written transfer and discharge notice given to the resident stated that his health had improved sufficiently so he no longer needed the services of the facility, but the resident refused to sign the form. The Social Services Assistant confirmed that the resident was not given a 30-day written notice and only received an undocumented verbal notice of about three weeks. The NHA stated that the resident was transferred because the facility was transitioning to more short-term beds, and the ADON confirmed there was no medical reason for the transfer, that the resident still needed LTC, and that the receiving facility did not provide any additional care beyond what the discharging facility could provide. The resident reported he had been told he would be evicted if he did not choose a place, that he selected one facility but was transported to another, and that after subsequent hospitalization the new facility would not readmit him, leaving him to arrange and pay for his own transportation and live in hotels.
Plan Of Correction
F627 Appropriate Discharge (1) What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? On , Resident #1 was discharged from the facility. On , Resident #2 was discharged from the facility. (2) How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken. On , NHA/Designee completed a quality review of residents discharged in the previous 30 days to ensure appropriate transportation was provided and to ensure residents/responsible parties that refuse to sign the Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice for non-emergent situations are provided a full 30 day notice with an appropriate reason. Any concerns noted were immediately corrected. (3) What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the practice does not recur. By , The NHA/Designee completed education with current social services staff and IDT team members on ensuring appropriate transportation was provided and to ensure residents/responsible parties that refuse to sign the Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice for non-emergent situations are provided a full 30 day notice with an appropriate reason. Any concerns noted were immediately corrected. Newly hired Social Services staff and IDT team members will be educated on ensuring appropriate transportation was provided and to ensure residents/responsible parties that refuse to sign the Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice for non-emergent situations are provided a full 30 day notice with an appropriate reason. Any concerns noted were immediately corrected. NHA/designee at orientation as a part of the systematic changes. (4) How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place: The DON/Designee will audit 5 random discharged residents to ensure appropriate transportation was provided and to ensure residents/responsible parties that refuse to sign the Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice for non-emergent situations are provided a full 30 day notice with an appropriate reason. Any concerns noted were immediately corrected. The findings of these quality monitoring's to be reported to the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement Committee monthly until committee determines substantial compliance has been met.
Failure to Timely Refund Full Balance Owed After Resident Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to refund the full amount of funds owed to a discharged resident within 30 days, as required by 42 CFR 483.10(g)(17)-(18) and the facility’s own policy. The facility policy stated that when a credit balance exists on a resident’s private account, and all insurance, Medicaid, and third-party payers are paid with no remaining deductibles or copays, a refund will be issued by check within 30 days of confirmation. Record review showed that one resident was discharged with a credit balance of $7,582.31 from prepaid charges after applicable copays were paid. The Business Office Manager confirmed that the resident had prepaid $11,067.31 and that $7,582.31 was due back to the resident upon discharge as an overpayment. The Business Office Manager also stated that the typical turnaround time for issuing a refund from the facility is about 30–60 days, which exceeds the 30-day requirement. Documentation provided showed that the facility issued one refund check for $4,011.31 and a second refund check for $1,112.00 to the resident, but as of the survey date, the facility still owed a remaining refund amount of $2,459.00, which had not been returned within 30 days of discharge.
Plan Of Correction
Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusions set forth on the statement of deficiencies. This plan of correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required. F582 Medicaid/ Medicare Coverage / Liability Notice (1) What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? By , Resident #3 refund was sent. (2) How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken. On , NHA/Designee completed a quality review of residents discharged in the previous 30 days to ensure refunds were provided in a timely manner. Any concerns noted were immediately corrected. (3) What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the practice does not recur. On4/2/2026, Business Office Manager were educated by the NHA/designee on ensuring refunds are provided in a timely manner. Newly hired Business Office Managers will be educated to ensure refunds are provided in a timely manner by the NHA/designee at orientation as a part of the systematic changes. (4) How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place. NHA/Designee to conduct audits of 5 random discharged residents to ensure refunds are provided in a timely manner weekly for 4 weeks then monthly for 2 months.The findings of these quality monitoring's to be reported to the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement Committee monthly until committee determines substantial compliance has been met.
Resident Left Unattended in Non-Running Transport Van in Hot Weather
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from neglect during transportation, resulting in the resident being left unattended in a non-running facility transport van in hot weather. The facility’s own Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Misappropriation, Mistreatment, and Injury of Unknown Origin (ANEMMI) policy defined neglect as the failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. The facility’s transportation policy and Fleet Management Manual required that residents remain under continuous supervision during transport, prohibited leaving residents unattended in vehicles, and specified that facility-owned vehicles were to be used only for facility business. Despite these policies, the assigned CNA-driver left the resident alone in the van while he went into a dentist’s office for a personal appointment. The resident involved had been admitted in early March with diagnoses including surgical aftercare following digestive system surgery, chronic kidney disease, and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. A BIMS assessment showed intact cognition with a score of 13/15. The care plan identified the resident as being at risk for fluid imbalance related to diuretic use and colostomy, with a goal to remain free from symptoms of dehydration. The resident required maximum assistance of one person for transfers and, according to the ADON and Director of Rehab, was non-ambulatory and always seen in a wheelchair, unable to walk or get out of the wheelchair independently. On the day of the incident, the resident had been seen by urology and was directed to go to the ER due to abnormal labs and concern for a possible fistula, and she had a nephrostomy tube with multiple tubes in place. Instead of proceeding directly to the ER, the CNA-driver diverted to a shopping center where his dentist’s office was located. He parked the facility van in an unshaded area, left the engine off, and left the resident strapped in her wheelchair in the back of the van. The resident reported that all doors and windows were shut and that it became very hot inside the van. The CNA later acknowledged in an interview that he left the resident unattended and strapped in the wheelchair, stating he had a bleeding mouth and stopped for an appointment, and that the window was only “a little open.” A police report documented that officers were dispatched after the resident called 911 stating she was locked in the bus and it was getting warm inside. When police and the Fire Department arrived, the van was not running, only the driver’s window was down and the front passenger door was slightly ajar, the vehicle was not in a shaded area, and the outside temperature was approximately 83°F and felt much warmer inside the van. The resident was visibly sweating, and the Fire Department had difficulty opening the doors, ultimately removing her through the front door. The police report recorded an offense code for crimes against person–neglect of an elderly disabled adult without great harm. The resident later described feeling trapped, becoming very hot, and believing she could have died if not rescued, and her son reported that she became emotional and cried when recounting the incident. The Emergency Department physician note documented that the patient was an elderly female who had been told by urology to go to the ER due to abnormal labs and that she reported feeling weak, with the note explicitly stating that she had been left in the van by the driver. A late-entry nursing progress note from the facility recorded that while being transported to the hospital following her appointment, the resident was left temporarily unattended and called 911, and that she had no signs of distress and was evaluated out of an abundance of caution. The CDC heat health information cited in the investigation noted that even in cool temperatures, cars can heat to dangerous levels quickly and that older adults are more prone to heat-related health problems. Based on these facts, surveyors determined that the facility failed to protect the resident’s right to be free from neglect by not preventing her from being left unattended in a hot, non-running vehicle, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy determination.
Failure to Ensure Safe, Appropriate, and Properly Noticed Discharges for Two Cognitively Intact Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure safe and appropriate discharge planning and execution for two cognitively intact residents, resulting in unsafe and inappropriate transfers/discharges. For the first resident, who had diagnoses including pulmonary embolism with acute cor pulmonale, acute respiratory failure, type 2 diabetes, presence of a cardiac pacemaker, anxiety disorder, depression, unspecified affective mood disorder, and Parkinson’s disease without dyskinesia, the facility arranged transportation through an outside transport company to return the resident to an assisted living facility (ALF). The social services director documented that transportation was scheduled for late afternoon on the day of discharge, but the clinical record contained no documentation of the actual pickup time. The transport company later reported that the request was canceled the same day because their required advance notice had not been met. On the day of discharge, the resident was removed from her room and placed in the activities room to wait for transportation. Multiple staff interviews indicated that the resident remained in common areas (activities room, dining room, lobby, and at the nurse’s station) asking about her ride as the afternoon and evening progressed. The assistant director of nursing stated that when he left the facility early in the evening, the resident was still asking about her ride and was told that the ALF was coming to pick her up. He later received text messages from an RN that the resident was anxious and wanted to leave, followed by a message that the resident had left. The nursing home administrator stated that staff assumed the resident had left with her transportation, even though no one actually saw her get into a vehicle and there was no documentation of her departure. The resident later reported that she had been waiting for transportation for hours, that “the big wigs left and the night nurses did not know what to do with her,” and that she eventually pushed open the door and left the building in her wheelchair without staff awareness. She stated she did not know the route to her ALF, did not have her phone, hearing aids, or dentures, and was self-propelling her wheelchair in the road when a couple stopped to help and called 911. An emergency department physician note documented that the resident said she had been waiting all day, became tired of waiting, left, and was found on the side of the street in her wheelchair before being brought to the ER by EMS. The ALF administrator reported that she was informed by the nursing home that the ALF had not picked up the resident, and later learned from a hospital case manager that the resident had been found on the side of the road and transported to the hospital. For the second resident, who had diagnoses including intervertebral disc degeneration, type 2 diabetes, insomnia due to other mental disorder, and depressive episodes, the facility failed to provide appropriate notice and justification for transfer and did not ensure the resident was discharged to the chosen destination. A psychology note shortly before discharge documented that the resident was unstable and having episodes of agitation due to situational concerns about being transferred to a new nursing home the following week. The discharge summary indicated the resident was being discharged to another nursing home in a different county, and a discharge order was entered without specifying the reason for transfer, level of care, or assistance needed. The written transfer and discharge notice given to the resident on the day of discharge stated that the reason for discharge was that the resident’s health had improved sufficiently so that he no longer needed the services provided by the facility, and documented that the resident refused to sign the notice. The resident later reported that he had been given three options of places to go and was told he would be evicted if he did not choose one, and that the facility told him they needed to free up his room because it was being converted to a different type of care. He stated that he chose a nursing home in one city but was instead transported to a nursing home in another city. The social services assistant stated that the resident chose the nursing home where he was sent, but also acknowledged that the resident was not given a 30‑day written notice of transfer and that there was no documentation of the verbal notice she said had been given three weeks earlier. She confirmed that the resident refused to sign the transfer form and that she was unsure why he was transferred. The nursing home administrator stated that the facility gives a 72‑hour notice if they cannot provide the skills or services to meet a resident’s maximum potential and that this resident was transferred because the facility was transitioning to more short‑term beds, and also acknowledged that the forms were not filled out correctly and there was no documentation that the resident agreed to transfer. The assistant director of nursing stated there was no medical reason for the transfer, the resident was not a danger to himself or others, still needed LTC, and that the receiving nursing home did not provide any additional care that their facility could not provide. The resident further reported that two days after arriving at the new nursing home he was hospitalized for medical complications, and that the new nursing home would not accept him back after his hospital stay. He stated that he then had to pay out of pocket for transportation back to his original city and was living in hotels because he had no home. Overall, the record review and interviews showed that the facility did not follow its own transfer and discharge policy requirements for notice, documentation of reasons for transfer, confirmation of transportation, and ensuring that discharges and transfers met residents’ needs and preferences and were carried out safely for both residents involved.
Failure to Provide Required 30-Day Notice for Non-Emergency Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a 30‑day advance written notice of a non-emergency transfer or discharge to one cognitively intact long-term care resident, as required by state law. The resident had multiple diagnoses, including a disc condition, Type 2 diabetes, and mental health conditions, and was admitted and cared for as a long-term care resident. A progress note documented that the resident was experiencing agitation related to “situational concerns of being transferred to a new nursing home next week,” indicating awareness of an upcoming move but not formal notice. The discharge summary showed the resident was discharged to another nursing home in a different county, and the physician’s discharge order did not include a reason for transfer, level of care, or assistance needed. The official Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice listed the reason for discharge as the resident’s health having improved so that facility services were no longer needed, and documented that the resident refused to sign the form. In interviews, the resident reported being given three options of places to go and being told he would be evicted if he did not choose one, and that staff said they needed to free up his room because it was being converted to a different type of care. The resident stated he chose a nursing home in Venice, Florida but was instead transported to a facility in Sarasota, Florida, and later had to arrange and pay for his own transportation back to Fort Myers after a hospitalization when the new nursing home would not readmit him. The Social Services Assistant acknowledged that the resident was not given a 30‑day written notice and only received a verbal notice of about three weeks, with no documentation of that verbal notice, and confirmed the resident refused to sign the transfer form. The Nursing Home Administrator stated they typically give a 72‑hour notice when they believe they cannot provide needed services and indicated the resident was transferred because the facility was transitioning to more short-term beds. The ADON confirmed there was no medical reason for the transfer, the resident was not a danger to self or others, still required LTC, and that the receiving facility did not provide any additional care beyond what the current facility could provide.
Plan Of Correction
Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusions set forth on the statement of deficiencies. This plan of correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required. N0505 30- Day Notice Required (1) What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? On , Resident #2 was discharged from the facility. (2) How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken. On , NHA/Designee completed a quality review of residents discharged in the previous 30 days to ensure residents/responsible parties that refuse to sign the Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice for non-emergent situations are provided a full 30 day notice with an appropriate reason. Any concerns noted were immediately corrected. (3) What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the practice does not recur. By [R] , The NHA/Designee completed education with current social services staff and IDT team members on ensuring residents/responsible parties that refuse to sign the Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice for non-emergent situations are provided a full 30 day notice with an appropriate reason. Newly hired Social Services staff and IDT team members will be educated on ensuring residents/responsible parties that refuse to sign the Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice for non-emergent situations are provided a full 30 day notice with appropriate reason, by the NHA/Designee at orientation as a part of the systematic changes. (4) How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place; The DON/Designee will audit 5 random non-emergent discharged residents to ensure residents/responsible parties that refuse to sign the Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice are provided a full 30 day notice with an appropriate reason, weekly x4 weeks and monthly x 2 months. The findings of these quality monitoring's to be reported to the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement Committee monthly until committee determines substantial compliance has been met.
Failure to Timely Refund Full Prepaid Balance to Discharged Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to refund the full amount of funds owed to a discharged resident within 30 days, as required by its own policy. The policy, revised January 29, 2024, states that when a credit balance exists on a resident’s private account and all payers (insurance, Medicaid, and/or third-party) are settled with no remaining deductibles or copays, a refund check is to be issued within 30 days. Record review showed that one resident was discharged on 6/9/2025 with a credit balance of $7,582.31 from prepaid charges. The Business Office Manager (BOM) confirmed that the resident had prepaid $11,067.31 on 5/9/2025 and that, after co-pays were applied, $7,582.31 was due back to the resident upon discharge. The BOM stated that the facility’s turnaround time for issuing refunds is about 30–60 days. Documentation showed that only partial refunds of $4,011.31 and $1,112.00 were issued on 7/14/2025 and 10/22/2025, respectively, and as of 3/31/2026 the facility still owed the resident $2,459.00, meaning the full refund was not provided within 30 days of discharge. This deficiency centers on the facility’s noncompliance with its refund policy and the resulting delay in returning the full prepaid balance to the discharged resident, as confirmed through record review and interview with the BOM.
Inadequate Supervision Leads to Multiple Falls and Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent multiple falls and major injuries for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of falls. The resident, who was admitted with conditions including dementia, seizures, and unsteady gait, experienced five documented falls within a short period. Despite having a care plan in place that included interventions such as encouraging the use of a call bell and wearing appropriate footwear, the resident continued to fall, resulting in significant injuries including a right hip fracture and a right humerus fracture. The facility's documentation and staff interviews revealed gaps in the implementation of the fall prevention plan. The resident was found on the floor multiple times, often confused and unable to explain how the falls occurred. Staff interventions, such as frequent rounding, were not clearly defined or consistently executed, as evidenced by the lack of documentation on how supervision was provided. The Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no adequate definition of frequent rounds, which contributed to the resident's repeated falls. The interdisciplinary team identified the resident's psychotic state as a contributing factor to one of the falls, but the facility did not adjust the care plan effectively to address the ongoing risk. The lack of clear and consistent supervision, combined with the resident's cognitive and physical limitations, led to repeated falls and serious injuries, highlighting deficiencies in the facility's fall prevention and supervision protocols.
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.
