Harborview Sarasota
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Sarasota, Florida.
- Location
- 4783 Fruitville Road, Sarasota, Florida 34232
- CMS Provider Number
- 105983
- Inspections on file
- 22
- Latest survey
- December 9, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 4
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Harborview Sarasota during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia and a history of multiple falls did not consistently receive care planned fall prevention interventions, such as a low bed, perimeter mattress, and enabler bars, despite documentation indicating otherwise. The facility also failed to conduct and document thorough investigations after several unwitnessed falls, including one resulting in a femur fracture and hospitalization. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and oversight regarding required interventions and incident follow-up.
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in ongoing cockroach and ant infestations in resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas. Multiple residents and staff reported and observed live pests, pest droppings, and black bio growth in personal spaces and on belongings. Pest control services were inconsistent due to unprepared rooms and unresolved structural and sanitation issues, leading to persistent pest problems and resident distress.
A resident with multiple health conditions and cognitive impairment did not receive adequate assistance with personal hygiene and activities of daily living. The individual was observed unkempt, unshaven, with matted hair, soiled bedding, and poor oral hygiene. Documentation showed missed scheduled showers, and staff interviews confirmed that grooming was not consistently provided as required by facility policy.
A resident with acute respiratory failure and pulmonary fibrosis did not receive physician-ordered continuous oxygen therapy, as there was no documentation of administration over several days. Staff and DON interviews confirmed the lack of implementation and documentation of the order, and there was also no admission or transfer assessment or investigation into the resident's change in condition.
Surveyors found that the facility did not maintain required records for monthly and weekly maintenance and testing of its emergency generator, including battery testing, load testing, and visual inspections, as required by NFPA standards. The last documented load test was several months prior to the review, and the Maintenance Director confirmed the lack of documentation.
A deficiency was identified in a facility where residents experienced neglect and mental abuse by CNAs. A resident reported rough handling and verbal threats during care, while another resident corroborated the account, describing the CNA as intimidating. Two other residents raised concerns about a different CNA's aggressive behavior, leading to feelings of fear and discomfort. The facility's investigation resulted in the termination of both CNAs due to violations of resident rights and customer service standards.
A resident at moderate risk for pressure injuries did not receive necessary preventive interventions, leading to the development of a pressure injury. The care plan failed to address the risk, and there was no documentation of preventive measures. A darkened area was later identified on the resident's heel, but the prescribed treatment was not documented as applied. The facility was undergoing changes with new management and procedures.
A resident at moderate risk for pressure injuries developed a pressure injury due to the facility's failure to implement an effective care plan. The resident's care plan did not address their skin condition or risk for pressure injuries, and a treatment plan for a darkened area on the heel was not documented or applied. The facility was in the process of implementing new procedures for skin assessments, but these were not in place at the time of the incident.
The facility failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect, as evidenced by incidents involving CNAs who were verbally and physically rough with residents. A resident reported being handled roughly during a shower by a CNA, who also used inappropriate language. Another incident involved two residents who felt intimidated by a CNA's aggressive behavior. Despite reports and witness accounts, the facility's investigation was inconclusive, and the CNA's employment was terminated based on customer service concerns. The facility did not adequately communicate with residents about the outcomes, leaving them in fear.
Failure to Implement and Document Fall Prevention Interventions and Investigations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident at high risk for falls was adequately protected from accident hazards and that appropriate supervision and interventions were consistently implemented. Despite the resident's documented history of dementia, gait abnormalities, impulsivity, and multiple falls, the facility did not maintain required fall prevention interventions as outlined in the care plan. Observations revealed that the resident's bed was not in the lowest position, the perimeter mattress was not in place, and bilateral enabler bars were missing, even though nursing documentation indicated these interventions were present. The facility also failed to conduct and document thorough investigations following several unwitnessed falls, including a significant incident that resulted in a right femur fracture and subsequent hospitalization for surgical repair. Progress notes and care plan reviews did not include root cause analyses for the falls or specify whether all prescribed interventions were in place at the time of each incident. Additionally, there was no documentation provided for the investigation of the fall that led to the femur fracture, despite requests from the survey team and concerns raised by the resident's responsible party. Staff interviews confirmed a lack of awareness and oversight regarding the implementation of fall prevention measures. The DON was unaware that certain interventions, such as the perimeter mattress, were part of the resident's care plan, and acknowledged that documentation in the Medication Administration Record did not reflect the actual status of interventions. The Administrator also confirmed the absence of investigation documentation for the critical fall event and did not address the incident in a subsequent abuse/neglect investigation, citing a change in facility administration.
Failure to Maintain Effective Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as required by its own policies, resulting in ongoing infestations of cockroaches and ants throughout resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas. Multiple residents reported seeing cockroaches in their bathrooms, bedrooms, dresser drawers, and even on their bodies and personal items. Observations confirmed the presence of live cockroaches and ants in various locations, including behind soap dispensers, in dresser drawers, and on floors and walls. Photographic evidence was obtained of live insects, pest droppings, and black bio growth in resident areas and on personal belongings. Staff interviews revealed that pest sightings were being logged, but the problem persisted and was not fully addressed. Several staff members, including LPNs and the Housekeeping Supervisor, acknowledged the ongoing issue with roaches and described their own actions to kill or report pests. The pest control company’s logs indicated that treatments were not consistently performed because rooms were not prepared for service, and the technician eventually stopped weekly visits due to unresolved structural and sanitation issues. Documentation showed gaps in pest control services and incomplete follow-through on pest control recommendations. Residents expressed embarrassment and distress over the pest infestations, with some avoiding showers or having family members assist in killing insects during visits. The pest control company’s records and statements from facility leadership confirmed that pest control visits were inconsistent and that recommendations for structural and sanitation improvements were not implemented in a timely manner. The deficiency was further evidenced by direct observations of live pests and pest droppings in resident living spaces and common areas, as well as by resident council minutes and pest sighting logs.
Failure to Provide Necessary Personal Hygiene and ADL Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary care and services to maintain personal hygiene for a resident who was unable to perform activities of daily living independently. The resident, who had diagnoses including a displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the right femur, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dementia, and anxiety, required partial to maximum assistance with oral hygiene and bathing according to the clinical record and care plan. Observations revealed the resident was unkempt, unshaven with a long beard and mustache, had matted and greasy hair, and was lying in bed with soiled sheets and a strong foul odor of urine in the room. The resident's teeth had black spots and a thick white coating, and his mouth was dry with foul breath. The resident reported not having been shaved or had a haircut in a long time and expressed a desire to be shaved. Review of CNA documentation showed missed scheduled showers on multiple dates, with no documentation that the resident received showers as planned. The facility's policy required staff to provide grooming and personal hygiene services for residents unable to perform these tasks. Interviews with staff confirmed that shaving typically occurred during showers or upon request, and that assistance was provided with oral care. However, the lack of documented and observed care indicated a failure to follow the care plan and facility policy, resulting in the resident not receiving adequate assistance with personal hygiene.
Failure to Provide Ordered Respiratory Care and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to provide respiratory care as ordered for a resident with acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The physician's order specified that oxygen should be administered continuously at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. However, review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the relevant period showed no documentation that the oxygen was administered as ordered from 11/22/25 through 11/24/25. Nursing progress notes also did not specify whether the resident was receiving oxygen at the time of a noted change in condition. Interviews with staff and the Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of documentation and implementation of the oxygen order. The resident was described as cognitively intact and was able to answer questions appropriately earlier in the day. On the day of the incident, the resident became lethargic, and family members requested transfer to the hospital. The DON verified the absence of an admission assessment, a transfer out assessment, and any documented investigation into the resident's change in condition.
Failure to Maintain and Test Emergency Generator per NFPA Standards
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide evidence of proper maintenance and testing of its 135 KW diesel-powered generator in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. During a record review with the Maintenance Director, surveyors found that the facility did not have documentation for monthly specific gravity or conductance testing of the generator's maintenance-free battery, weekly voltage testing of the battery, monthly load testing of the life safety generator, or weekly visual inspections of the generator. The last documented monthly load test was dated several months prior to the review. These deficiencies were confirmed during an interview with the Maintenance Director, who acknowledged the lack of required records. The absence of these maintenance and testing records indicates that the facility did not adhere to the required schedules and procedures outlined in NFPA 99, NFPA 110, and NFPA 101 for ensuring the reliability of the essential electrical system, specifically the emergency generator and its components.
Neglect and Mental Abuse in Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the failure of a facility to protect residents from neglect and mental abuse, as evidenced by the experiences of four residents. Resident #699 reported that a CNA was verbally abusive and rough during care, failing to follow proper hygiene procedures and threatening to leave the resident unattended. The resident expressed fear and anxiety due to the CNA's behavior and was not informed promptly about the CNA's termination, which prolonged the resident's distress. Resident #700 corroborated the account of Resident #699, describing the CNA as intimidating and rough during care. The resident witnessed the CNA's inappropriate handling of Resident #699 and reported the incident to the facility. Despite the facility's investigation, the CNA's behavior was deemed inconsistent with facility standards, leading to her termination. Additionally, Residents #800 and #850 raised concerns about another CNA, Staff B, who displayed aggressive behavior and was rough during care. Resident #850 reported being left uncovered and in a soiled state for an extended period, feeling demeaned and hurt by the CNA's actions. The facility's investigation into these allegations was inconclusive, but due to concerns about customer service, CNA Staff B's employment was terminated.
Plan Of Correction
Tag Cited: F-600 Free from and Neglect CFR(s): 483.12(a)(1) 1. Immediate action(s) taken for the resident(s) found to have been affected include: CNA Staff A and CNA Staff B were immediately removed from the schedule and terminated from employment and reported to board. Affected residents (R699, R700, R800, R850) received assessments from Social Services and were offered ongoing emotional support. The facility formally notified residents R699, R700, R800, and R850 (and/or their representatives) that CNA Staff A and B were no longer employed. 2. The Identification of other residents having the potential to be affected was accomplished by: Starting a facility-wide audit of grievance reports and residents with of 12 or higher was conducted by Social Services to identify any other concerns related to or neglect and was completed by . 3. Actions taken/systems put into place to reduce the risk of future occurrence include: On Human Resources re-conducted Prevention Training and Customer Service education for all staff to be completed by . Any staff who are unable to meet the compliance date will be educated prior to their next working shift. All new hires must complete Prevention and Customer Service modules in Relias during orientation. The facility doesn't currently utilize agency staffing at this time. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur: The Administrator or designee will complete 10 resident interviews weekly for 2 weeks, and then 5 residents weekly for 4 weeks to monitor any concerns about staff behavior or . With any allegation of neglect a licensed psychologist/social Worker will conduct an initial interview and determine plan for resident(s) emotional or needs. Customer service satisfaction rounds will be completed 5x weekly by the Department Heads for a total of 80 residents by the end of the week and submitted to the Administrator and/or Designee for review by the end of each day 5 x weekly for 6 weeks. The Administrator will bring the findings to the QAPI meeting monthly starting to evaluate effectiveness and recommend changes. 5. Corrective action completion date: 6/3/25.
Failure to Prevent Pressure Injuries in Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary interventions to prevent the development of avoidable pressure injuries for a resident identified as at risk. The resident, who was dependent for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and bathing, was admitted without any pressure injuries and was initially assessed as not at risk. However, a subsequent assessment indicated a moderate risk for pressure injuries, yet the care plan did not address this risk. There was no documentation of preventive measures being implemented to decrease the risk of pressure injuries for the resident. A darkened area was later identified on the resident's left heel, and a treatment plan was developed, but there was no documentation that the prescribed skin preparation was ordered or applied. The resident was transferred to the hospital at the family's request, and the facility's investigation noted that a pressure injury developed during the resident's stay, which was documented and treated according to facility protocol. The facility was undergoing changes with a new company and new Director of Nursing, and they were in the process of implementing new procedures for skin assessments.
Plan Of Correction
Tag Cited: F686 Treatment/Svcs to Prevent/Heal CFR(s): 483.25(b)(1)(1)(ii) 1. Immediate action(s) taken for the resident(s) found to have been affected include: The facility failed to implement skin integrity interventions for Resident R799. Resident R799 was transferred to hospital and didn't return to the facility. 2. Identification of other residents having the potential to be affected was accomplished by: On the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, and Unit Manager conducted a 100% skin sweep audit for current residents to establish a baseline skin assessment by completed by. On a 100% audit for Braden Assessments was completed for current residents to address moderate to high-risk Braden Scores. This audit was conducted by the Director of Nursing. Assistant Director of Nursing, and Unit Manager completed by. 3. Actions taken/systems put into place to reduce the risk of future occurrence include: On the Director of Nursing conducted an audit of all current residents to review and identify those with and/or Braden scores of moderate to high risk by and completed by. Any resident with or Braden Scores of moderate to high had care plans initiated or revised care plan focusing on skin integrity and prevention needs. All new admissions are ordered skin prep to heels for the first 14 days of admission and then reassessed by nurse for further skin integrity needs. A designated treatment nurse was hired on. Starting, the Assistance Director of Nursing began re-education for Licensed Nursing staff (RN and LPN) on Care Best Practices including timely documentation. All licensed nursing staff will be educated by anyone not in compliance with this date will be educated prior to the next working shift. All newly hired licensed nursing staff (RN and LPN) will complete this education during orientation. The facility is not currently utilizing agency staffing. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur: Starting the Care Nurse or designee will audit new admissions five times a week for 2 weeks, and 5 new admission records weekly for 4 weeks, to ensure residents with high-risk Braden Scores have appropriate interventions in place for skin integrity. The Care Nurse will bring the findings to the QAPI meeting monthly starting to evaluate effectiveness and recommend changes. 5. Corrective action completion date: 6/3/25
Failure to Prevent Pressure Injury in Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary care and services to prevent the development of avoidable pressure injuries for a resident identified as at risk. The facility's policy on 'Pressure Injury Prevention and Management' was not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the lack of a care plan addressing the resident's skin condition and potential risk for pressure injuries. The resident, who was dependent for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and bathing, was initially assessed as not at risk for pressure injuries upon admission. However, a subsequent assessment indicated a moderate risk, which was not reflected in the care plan. A darkened area on the resident's left heel was identified, but the treatment plan, which included skin preparation, was not documented as ordered or applied. The resident was transferred to the hospital at the family's request and did not return to the facility. Interviews with the facility's new administration and nursing staff revealed that they were in the process of implementing new procedures for skin assessments and care, but these were not in place at the time of the incident. The facility's investigation confirmed the development of a pressure injury during the resident's stay, which was documented and treated according to protocol.
Plan Of Correction
Tag Cited: F686 Treatment/Svcs to Prevent/Heal CFR(s): 483.25(b)(1)(i)(ii) 1. Immediate action(s) taken for the resident(s) found to have been affected include: The facility failed to implement skin integrity interventions for Resident R799. Resident R799 was transferred to hospital and didn't return to the facility. 2. Identification of other residents having the potential to be affected was accomplished by: On the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, and Unit Manager conducted a 100% skin sweep audit for current residents to establish a baseline skin assessment by completed by. On a 100% audit for Braden Assessments was completed for current residents to address moderate to high-risk Braden Scores. This audit was conducted by the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, and Unit Manager completed by. 3. Actions taken/systems put into place to reduce the risk of future occurrence include: On the Director of Nursing conducted an audit of all current residents to review and identify those with and/or Braden scores of moderate to high risk by and completed by. Any resident with or Braden Scores of moderate to high had care plans initiated or revised care plan focusing on skin integrity and prevention needs. All new admissions are ordered skin prep to heels for the first 14 days of admission and then reassessed by nurse for further skin integrity needs. A designated treatment nurse was hired on. Starting the Assistance Director of Nursing began re-education for Licensed Nursing staff (RN and LPN) on Care Best Practices including timely documentation. All licensed nursing staff will be educated by, anyone not in compliance with this date will be educated prior to the next working shift. All newly hired licensed nursing staff (RN and LPN) will complete this education during orientation. The facility is not currently utilizing agency staffing. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur: Starting the Care Nurse or designee will audit new admissions five times a week for 2 weeks, and 5 new admission records weekly for 4 weeks, to ensure residents with high-risk Braden Scores have appropriate interventions in place for skin integrity. The Care Nurse will bring the findings to the QAPI meeting monthly starting to evaluate effectiveness and recommend changes. 5. Corrective action completion date: 6/3/25
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse and Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents' rights to be free from abuse and neglect, as evidenced by multiple incidents involving inappropriate and rough handling by certified nursing assistants (CNAs). Resident #699 reported that CNA Staff A was verbally abusive and physically rough during a shower, failing to follow proper hygiene procedures and leaving the resident feeling afraid and intimidated. The resident was not informed of the CNA's termination, leaving her in fear of potential retaliation. Resident #700 corroborated the account, describing the CNA's aggressive demeanor and improper care practices. In another incident, Residents #800 and #850 raised concerns about CNA Staff B's aggressive behavior. Resident #850 reported feeling intimidated and uncomfortable due to the CNA's rough handling and verbal aggression. Central Supply Staff D witnessed the CNA's inappropriate behavior and reported it to the nurse on duty. Despite these reports, the facility's investigation was inconclusive, and the CNA's employment was terminated based on customer service concerns rather than confirmed abuse. The facility's response to these allegations was inadequate, as there was no documentation of increased monitoring or protective measures for the affected residents. The Administrator acknowledged the need for improved customer service and staff education but did not provide evidence of effective measures to prevent future incidents. The lack of communication with residents about the outcomes of investigations contributed to their ongoing fear and discomfort.
Plan Of Correction
Tag Cited: F-600 Free from and Neglect CFR(s): 483.12(a)(1) 1. Immediate action(s) taken for the resident(s) found to have been affected include: CNA Staff A and CNA Staff B were immediately removed from the schedule and terminated from employment and reported to board. Affected residents (R899, R700, R800, R850) received assessments from Social Services and were offered ongoing emotional support. The facility formally notified residents R699, R700, R800, and R850 (and/or their representatives) that CNA Staff A and B were no longer employed. 2. The Identification of other residents having the potential to be affected was accomplished by: Starting a facility-wide audit of grievance reports and residents with of 12 or higher was conducted by Social Services to identify any other concerns related to or neglect and was completed by. 3. Actions taken/systems put into place to reduce the risk of future occurrence include: On Human Resources re-conducted Prevention Training and Customer Service education for all staff to be completed. by Any staff who are unable to meet the compliance date will be educated prior to their next working shift. All new hires must complete Prevention and Customer Service modules in Rellas during orientation. The facility doesn't currently utilize agency staffing at this time. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur: The Administrator or designee will complete 10 resident interviews weekly for 2 weeks, and then 5 residents weekly for 4 weeks to monitor any concerns about staff behavior or. With any allegation of or neglect a licensed psychologist/social Worker will conduct an initial interview and determine plan for resident(s) emotional or needs. Customer service satisfaction rounds will be completed 5x weekly by the Department Heads for a total of 80 residents by the end of the week and submitted to the Administrator and/or Designee for review by the end of each day 5 x weekly for 6 weeks. The Administrator will bring the findings to the QAPI meeting monthly starting to evaluate effectiveness and recommend changes. 5. Corrective action completion date: 6/3/25.
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.



