Lake Montgomery Health And Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Lake City, Florida.
- Location
- 1270 Sw Main Blvd, Lake City, Florida 32055
- CMS Provider Number
- 105346
- Inspections on file
- 25
- Latest survey
- January 29, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 11
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Lake Montgomery Health And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with type 2 DM, foot ulcers, and cognitive impairment had physician orders for HumaLOG sliding‑scale insulin before meals and at bedtime and Lantus insulin at bedtime. Over two consecutive months, the MAR showed multiple instances where blood glucose checks were not completed as ordered and numerous refusals of Lantus were documented, yet there was no documentation that the resident’s representative was notified of these refusals or missed monitoring. The resident’s representative later reported not being informed of the non‑compliance, an LPN acknowledged not notifying the family in this case, and the DON stated that the expectation per facility policy was to notify and document when residents refuse medications or treatments, including clinical complications requiring notification.
A resident was admitted with a Full Code advanced directive, and the care plan correctly reflected a CPR (Full Code) order at admission. Later, the resident’s code status was changed to DNR, but the care plan was not updated to reflect this change. The DON, MDS LPN, and Social Worker Director all confirmed in interviews that code status changes are normally discussed in morning clinical meetings and should trigger a care plan update, but in this instance the change was missed. This failure was not consistent with the facility’s written policy requiring documentation and care plan updates whenever code status/advanced directives are changed.
A resident with DM had physician orders for sliding-scale HumaLOG before meals and at HS and scheduled Lantus at HS, but the MAR over two consecutive months showed numerous entries where ordered blood glucose checks were marked as "NA," left blank, or marked with an "X," and multiple Lantus doses were coded as refused. The medical record lacked documentation that the provider was notified when blood sugars were not obtained to determine insulin needs or when insulin doses were refused. In interviews, an APRN and an LPN reported that the resident often refused accu-checks and insulin and that staff usually called the provider, while the LPN admitted there were times these calls were not documented. The DON stated that nurses are expected to notify the provider and document refusals, and facility policies require that reasons for not following physician orders and all refusals be recorded in the medical record, which did not occur consistently for this resident.
A resident's assessment failed to accurately reflect their use of oxygen therapy, as the MDS indicated no oxygen use despite multiple records and a physician order confirming ongoing oxygen administration. An LPN confirmed that documentation practices did not align with facility policy, leading to an inaccurate assessment.
The facility did not accurately complete PASRR screenings for two residents with multiple mental health diagnoses, omitting key conditions such as mood disorders, schizophrenia, and psychotic disorders from the required documentation. Despite psychiatric notes and MDS assessments indicating these active diagnoses, the PASRR forms were not updated accordingly, as confirmed by the DON.
Nursing staff failed to administer medications according to physician orders for two residents. One resident's blood pressure medication was withheld without provider notification or parameters, while another resident received insulin despite blood sugar levels below the ordered threshold. Staff interviews revealed lack of adherence to medication orders and facility policy.
Accurate nurse staffing information was not posted daily as required, with outdated information observed and delays attributed to the scheduler waiting for census data. The scheduler and administrative staff provided differing accounts regarding the timeliness of census information and expectations for posting, and there was no formal policy in place for the posting process.
The facility did not ensure that laboratory services and tests were provided in a timely and quality manner to meet resident needs, as identified during the survey.
Surveyors observed that food items in a nourishment room freezer and refrigerator were not labeled or dated as required. The Dietary Manager confirmed that these items should have been labeled and dated, in line with facility policy for food brought in by families or visitors.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment, with multiple deficiencies observed in the laundry room and various hallways. Issues included a non-functional washing machine, buildup of garbage and debris, dirty air conditioning unit and dryer lint areas, and broken equipment. Additional deficiencies were found in the C-Hallway and B-Hallway, including improper storage of cleaning supplies, buildup of ice in a specimen refrigerator, and a broken wash sink.
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including diabetes and pressure injuries, experienced significant weight loss due to the facility's failure to provide timely nutritional interventions. Despite consuming most of her meals, the resident's weight dropped significantly, and the Consultant Dietitian had not started supplements despite being aware of the weight loss.
Failure to Notify Resident Representative of Repeated Insulin Refusals and Missed Blood Glucose Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a resident’s representative when the resident repeatedly refused ordered insulin and when staff did not monitor blood sugar values as ordered. The resident was admitted with type 2 diabetes mellitus with a foot ulcer, difficulty in walking, and a non‑pressure chronic ulcer of the right foot with necrosis of muscle. A quarterly MDS documented a BIMS score of 9/15, indicating some cognitive impairment. The resident had orders for HumaLOG insulin per sliding scale before meals and at bedtime, and Lantus insulin at bedtime for diabetes management. Review of the MAR for November showed multiple instances where blood sugar monitoring was not completed as ordered and/or insulin was not administered. For HumaLOG, there were 16 occurrences in November where blood sugar values were either marked as not applicable or left blank at various times (0630, 1130, 1630, and 2100), indicating that blood sugar was not checked to determine if insulin was required. For Lantus, four doses in November were documented with the code "2" for drug refused. The medical record for this period did not contain documentation that the resident’s representative was notified of either the refusals or the missed blood sugar monitoring. In December, the pattern continued. The Lantus dose was increased to 25 units at bedtime, and the MAR documented five additional refusals of Lantus using the code "2". For HumaLOG, there were 15 occurrences in December where blood sugar values were not monitored, documented as not applicable or with an "X" at various scheduled times. Again, the medical record did not show that the resident’s representative was notified of the resident’s refusals of insulin or of staff not monitoring blood sugar values. The resident’s representative later stated they were not aware of the refusals and had not been told the resident was non‑compliant. An LPN reported that while they call the physician and sometimes family when refusals are frequent, they did not notify this resident’s family. The DON stated the expectation was that nurses notify family and the provider and document when a resident refuses medications or treatments, and that the resident’s refusals had been discussed in morning meetings. The facility’s Notification of Changes policy required notifying the resident’s representative of clinical complications and significant changes in health status.
Failure to Update Care Plan After Change in Advanced Directives
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to update a resident’s care plan to reflect a change in advanced directives. Record review showed that the resident was admitted with an advanced directive of Full Code status, and the care plan documented a focus on advanced directives with an established CPR (Full Code) order and corresponding initiation and creation dates. However, the resident’s code status was changed in October to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), and this change was not reflected in the resident’s care plan. During interviews, the DON acknowledged that the resident’s care plan was not updated after the code status changed from Full Code to DNR. The MDS LPN stated that when a code status order changes, the care plan should be updated and that this is typically discussed in morning meetings before care plans are revised, but in this case the update did not occur. The Social Worker Director reported attending morning clinical meetings where advanced directives are reviewed and stated that if the care plan was not updated, it was likely missed during this process. Review of the facility’s “Advanced Directives Code Status” policy confirmed that when code status changes, Social Services and nursing must document the change and update the code status/advanced directives care plan, which did not happen for this resident.
Failure to Maintain Complete Insulin and Blood Glucose Monitoring Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain complete and accurate medical records and to document required notifications related to insulin administration and blood glucose monitoring for one resident with diabetes mellitus. The resident had physician orders for HumaLOG KwikPen insulin on a sliding scale before meals and at bedtime, and for Lantus SoloStar insulin at bedtime. Review of the MAR for November 1–30, 2025, showed multiple entries where blood sugar values were recorded as “NA” or left blank at ordered times (0630, 1130, 1630, and 2100), and one entry marked with an “X,” resulting in 16 occurrences where the resident’s blood sugar was not monitored as ordered to determine if sliding-scale insulin was required. The medical record for that period did not contain documentation that the physician was notified when the medication was not administered due to resident refusal and/or staff not performing the ordered blood sugar checks. For the same resident, the MAR for November 1–30, 2025, documented Lantus SoloStar 100 UNIT/ML at bedtime with four doses marked with the chart code “2,” indicating drug refusal, on specific dates in November. The resident’s medical record did not contain documentation that the physician was notified of these refusals. In the subsequent period, December 1–20, 2025, the Lantus SoloStar order was changed to 25 units at bedtime, and the MAR documented five additional doses with the code “2” for refusal. Again, the medical record for this period did not show documentation that the physician was notified of the resident’s repeated refusals of the ordered insulin. During the same December period, the MAR for HumaLOG KwikPen continued to show missing or incomplete documentation of blood sugar monitoring. At ordered times, multiple entries were documented as “NA” or with an “X,” resulting in 15 occurrences where the resident’s blood sugar was not monitored to determine if insulin administration was required. Interviews with the APRN and an LPN indicated that the resident frequently refused blood sugar checks and insulin, and that staff usually called the provider, but the LPN acknowledged there were times these calls were not documented. The DON stated that the facility’s expectation is that nurses notify family and the provider and document when a resident refuses medications or treatments. Facility policies on Physician Services and Medication Administration require that all physician orders be followed, reasons for not following orders be recorded in the medical record during that shift, and that refusals be reported and documented, which was not consistently done for this resident.
Inaccurate Resident Assessment for Oxygen Therapy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of resident assessments for one resident receiving respiratory services. Specifically, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment documented that the resident did not use oxygen therapy, despite multiple records showing the resident was receiving oxygen via nasal cannula on several occasions. Nurses' notes and vital sign records consistently indicated oxygen use, and a physician's order was in place for oxygen administration as needed for shortness of breath. During an interview, an LPN acknowledged that the MDS section regarding oxygen use needed updating and that nursing staff were not documenting oxygen therapy on the treatment record, instead recording it in nurses' notes and vital sign records. The facility's policy requires comprehensive and accurate assessments using the RAI process, which was not followed in this instance.
Failure to Accurately Complete PASRR for Residents with Mental Health Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) process was accurately completed for two residents. For one resident with a history of residual schizophrenia, unspecified mood disorder, adjustment disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and paranoid schizophrenia, the PASRR did not reflect persistent mood disorder or suspected mental illness in the relevant section. This omission was identified despite the resident's psychiatric notes and Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicating active diagnoses of mood and mental health disorders. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the PASRR needed updating and was unaware that additional diagnoses could be added in the specified section. Similarly, another resident with diagnoses including brief psychotic disorder, major depressive disorder, other specified persistent mood disorders, and generalized anxiety disorder had a PASRR that did not list these mental health conditions under the mental illness or suspected mental illness section. The resident's psychiatric notes and MDS assessment documented these active diagnoses, but they were not reflected in the PASRR. The DON confirmed that the PASRR for this resident also required updating to include the missing diagnoses.
Failure to Administer Medications as Ordered by Physician
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that medications were administered as ordered by physicians for two residents. For one resident, Metoprolol Tartrate was held multiple times by nursing staff due to perceived low blood pressure and pulse, despite the physician's order not including parameters for withholding the medication. The nurses did not notify the provider about their concerns or seek clarification before withholding the medication. Interviews with the DON and the physician confirmed that the medication should not have been held without a specific order or parameters, and that the provider was not informed of the nurses' actions. For another resident, insulin glargine (Lantus) was administered on several occasions even when the resident's blood sugar was below the ordered threshold for holding the medication. The physician's order specified to hold Lantus if blood sugar was less than 150, but the medication was still given at lower blood sugar readings. Nursing staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness or attention to the specific parameters in the order, with some staff admitting to not reading the full order or making errors in administration. The facility's policy required medications to be administered as ordered by the physician, but this was not followed in these cases.
Failure to Post Accurate Daily Nurse Staffing Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that accurate nurse staffing information was posted daily as required. On observation, the staffing information displayed was for the previous day rather than the current day. Interviews revealed that the scheduler, who is responsible for updating the posting, typically arrives around 8 to 8:30 AM and sometimes delays updating the information while waiting for the current census from payroll or the Business Office Manager. The scheduler stated that on the day in question, the updated posting was prepared but not displayed because she was still finalizing the numbers. The Business Office Manager reported no delays in providing the census, and the Administrator confirmed there was no formal policy for posting the staffing information, but expected it to be posted by 9:00 AM.
Failure to Provide Timely, Quality Laboratory Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely, quality laboratory services and tests to meet the needs of residents. This deficiency was identified during the survey process, indicating that the laboratory services did not meet the required standards for promptness or quality as needed for resident care. No additional details about specific residents, their medical history, or the exact nature of the laboratory service failures are provided in the report.
Failure to Properly Label and Date Food Items in Nourishment Room
Penalty
Summary
During an observation of the nourishment room on C Hall, surveyors found two unlabeled and undated plastic bags containing unknown food items in the freezer, as well as an unlabeled and undated cloth lunch box with an unknown food item in the refrigerator drawer. The Dietary Manager confirmed during an interview that these food items should have been labeled and dated. Review of the facility's policy indicated that all prepared food brought in by family or visitors must be labeled with content and date to ensure resident safety. The failure to label and date these food items was not in accordance with the facility's policy and professional standards for food storage.
Failure to Maintain a Clean and Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment for residents, as evidenced by multiple deficiencies observed in the laundry room and various hallways. During an inspection, one of the two washing machines was found to be non-functional, and there was a significant buildup of garbage, debris, and lint behind the machines. Additionally, a window screen was improperly placed on the floor, surrounded by garbage and debris. The air conditioning unit, dryer lint areas, and the drum of Dryer #2 were all found to be dirty, with Dryer #2's door not latching properly. The clean linen cart also contained garbage and debris, and the carts holding clean linens were uncovered. Interviews with the Director of Housekeeping and Laundry, the Maintenance Director, and a Laundry Assistant confirmed these issues, with the Director of Housekeeping and Laundry noting that the broken washing machine had been affecting their ability to keep up with laundry needs for a couple of weeks. The Maintenance Director admitted that the facility never cleaned and scraped the dryer drums, and the Laundry Assistant confirmed the broken latch on Dryer #2's door. Further observations revealed additional deficiencies in the C-Hallway and B-Hallway. In the shower room on the C-Hallway, a disinfectant cleaner with bleach spray was found lying near a stack of towels, a drink, a package of cookies, and a cell phone on the sink counter. The specimen refrigerator in the dirty utility room of the C-Hallway had a buildup of ice in the freezer section, and three ceiling vents on the C-Hallway had a buildup of dust, lint, and a black substance. In the Medication Room on the C-Hallway, supply boxes were stacked on top of the upper cabinets, reaching the ceiling. Additionally, the wash sink in the soiled room on the B-Hallway was broken. The Maintenance Director confirmed these findings and was unable to specify how long the wash sink had been broken.
Failure to Provide Timely Nutritional Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely nutritional interventions for a resident who experienced significant weight loss. The resident, who had diagnoses including diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and pressure injuries, reported that the food was often cold and over-seasoned, leading her to frequently request a substitute meal, usually a sandwich. Despite consuming 50-100% of her meals, the resident's weight dropped from 188 pounds to 150 pounds over a six-month period, indicating a 20.21% weight loss. The care plan noted the resident was at nutritional risk and experiencing weight loss, but the interventions, such as providing snacks, were not effective in preventing further weight loss. Additionally, the resident had a stage 4 pressure ulcer that showed signs of worsening over time, as documented by the Wound Nurse Practitioner. The Consultant Dietitian acknowledged being aware of the resident's significant weight loss but had not initiated any supplements. The dietitian only became aware of the most recent weight measurement the day before the interview. Despite the resident's consistent meal consumption and the documented weight loss, the facility did not implement timely and effective nutritional interventions to address the resident's needs, contributing to the deficiency in care.
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.



