Pinellas Park Fl Opco, Llc
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Pinellas Park, Florida.
- Location
- 8701 49th St N, Pinellas Park, Florida 33782
- CMS Provider Number
- 105422
- Inspections on file
- 25
- Latest survey
- March 5, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 4 (3 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Pinellas Park Fl Opco, Llc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with intact cognition and multiple chronic conditions had clearly documented Full Code status confirmed through advance care planning, physician notes, nursing assessments, and the care plan. In the early morning, CNAs found the resident unresponsive, without a pulse, and not breathing, and notified an LPN, who delayed while checking an oximeter, verifying code status, and sending CNAs to get additional nurses instead of calling a code blue or starting CPR. The LPN later stated she believed the resident was already dead and did not initiate compressions, and the responding RN and another LPN, summoned to "pronounce" the resident, assumed a DNR status, did not verify code status, and also did not begin CPR. No staff performed CPR before EMS arrival; EMS confirmed the resident was Full Code, questioned the lack of CPR, and then initiated resuscitation efforts, which were unsuccessful, leading surveyors to cite the facility for failing to protect the resident from neglect by not honoring the resident’s advance directive for resuscitation.
A resident with intact cognition and multiple chronic conditions had clearly documented Advance Care Planning and physician orders confirming Full Code status. In the early morning, CNAs found the resident unresponsive, without a pulse or respirations, and notified an LPN, who delayed responding, used a pulse oximeter showing low oxygen saturation, and left the room to check code status instead of calling a code blue or starting CPR. CNAs were sent to obtain additional nurses from another floor, leaving the resident alone, and when multiple nurses arrived, they did not verify the code status promptly, assumed the resident was a DNR based on how the situation was presented, did not call a code blue, and did not initiate CPR. The assigned LPN acknowledged not performing compressions, stating she believed the resident was already dead and needed a backboard and help to move him, and other nurses confirmed that no CPR was performed before EMS arrival. EMS questioned why CPR had not been started for a Full Code resident and then initiated resuscitation, and surveyors determined that CPR was not initiated for approximately 35 minutes, resulting in physical pain and death and leading to an Immediate Jeopardy citation.
A resident with a documented full code status was found unresponsive and without vital signs, but multiple staff, including CNAs, an LPN, and RNs, failed to initiate CPR or call a code blue. The assigned CNA and another CNA reported that the LPN delayed responding, obtained an oxygen saturation of 60, left to verify code status, confirmed the resident was full code, yet did not start compressions or call a code, and no staff performed CPR before EMS arrived. The LPN later stated she believed the resident was already dead, did not call a code, did not ask CNAs for help to move the resident or use a backboard, and acknowledged that no interventions were performed while they waited for EMS. Other nurses who came to the room assumed the resident was a DNR based on how the situation was presented, did not independently verify code status, did not initiate CPR, and did not call a code blue. EMS questioned why CPR had not been started for a full code resident, and the medical director confirmed that facility expectations and protocol required immediate CPR for an unresponsive full code resident and did not authorize nurses to pronounce death.
Surveyors found that a resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment, incontinence, and dependence for toileting hygiene had multiple missing entries in ADL documentation over a short stay, with no recorded incontinence care for most toileting opportunities and no record of meals provided for most mealtimes. Staff later could not recall the resident or the care given, and the DON confirmed that documentation should reflect whether care or meals were provided or refused and that blanks were not acceptable. The resident’s MDS and care plan showed total dependence, always-incontinent status, and skin integrity risk, while facility policies required appropriate incontinence care, ADL support, and meal service, but there was no facility policy provided on documentation.
The facility's kitchen was found to be unsanitary and poorly maintained, with a broken handwashing sink, blocked dishwashing area, and inadequate lighting. Observations revealed rusted equipment, debris, and dirt buildup, while staff interviews indicated a lack of adherence to cleaning protocols. Despite documentation of completed cleaning tasks, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen environment.
The facility failed to label medications according to professional standards, as observed on two floors. Medication bottles and injector pens lacked documented expiration and open dates. Staff admitted to not knowing the expiration dates, and the DON confirmed the expectation for staff to document these dates. The facility's policy requires identifying expiration dates and notifying the nurse manager if expired.
The facility failed to label medications according to professional standards, as observed on two floors and two medication carts. Unlabeled medication bottles and injector pens without documented open and discard dates were found. Staff acknowledged the oversight, and the facility's policy requires proper labeling to prevent contamination.
Failure to Honor Full Code Status and Initiate Timely CPR
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a cognitively intact resident’s clearly documented Full Code status and to initiate CPR when the resident was found unresponsive. The resident had multiple medical diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, abnormal gait, blindness in the right eye, shortness of breath, muscle wasting, mood disorder, and hypertension. On admission and throughout the stay, documentation in the EMR, physician orders, nursing assessments, care plan, and an APRN advance care planning note consistently identified the resident as Full Code, with the resident verbalizing understanding of Full Code versus DNR and electing Full Code. A 5‑day MDS showed intact cognition (BIMS 14), and progress notes shortly before the event documented the resident as clinically stable, at baseline, and continuing as Full Code. On the morning of the incident, a CNA assigned to the resident reported finding him unresponsive close to 6:00 a.m. and notified the LPN assigned to him. Another CNA reported being told around 5:30 a.m. that the resident was not responding and, upon entering the room, found the resident not breathing and without a pulse, partially hanging off the bed. Both CNAs described that when the LPN arrived, she checked the resident, left to obtain a pulse oximeter, returned with an oxygen saturation reading of 60, and was told by the CNA that there was no pulse and that a code should be called. The CNAs stated that the LPN delayed, left the room again to check code status, then reported the resident was Full Code, but still did not initiate CPR or call a code blue. Instead, the CNAs were sent to get another nurse from another floor, leaving the resident alone in the room during part of this time. The CNAs consistently reported that no staff initiated CPR before EMS arrived. The LPN assigned to the resident stated she found him unresponsive around 6:00 a.m., performed a sternal rub, noted he was not responding and that his feet were cold, and then left the room to call 911 from her personal cell phone and get the crash cart. She acknowledged that she did not start CPR, stating she believed the resident was already dead, that he was a large man, and that she needed a backboard and additional help to move him to the floor, but did not ask the CNAs to assist. She confirmed that no code blue was called and that no CPR was performed by facility staff. Two additional nurses who responded to the room reported they were summoned to “pronounce” a resident, assumed the resident was a DNR based on how the situation was presented, did not independently verify code status before acting, and did not initiate CPR. The RN who arrived stated she called the DON to ask what to do about pronouncing, was told the resident was Full Code and to start CPR, and that at that moment EMS arrived. EMS arrived at approximately 6:09 a.m., confirmed the resident’s Full Code status, questioned why CPR had not been started, and then initiated CPR, which continued for approximately 45 minutes before the resident was pronounced dead. Facility leadership and the Medical Director later confirmed that CPR had not been initiated by staff and that the resident’s Full Code status had not been honored, resulting in a determination of Immediate Jeopardy.
Removal Plan
- Initiated an internal investigation with resident record review, staff interviews, and notification to DCF, AHCA, and local law enforcement.
- Suspended and terminated the assigned nurse and reported the nurse’s license to the licensing board.
- Suspended and terminated two additional nurses who responded to the scene and reported their licenses to the licensing board.
- Completed a facility audit of resident code status preferences and verified that orders and care plans were correct.
- Conducted a 100% audit of the crash carts in the facility to ensure all required items were present.
- Held an Ad Hoc QAPI meeting with the Executive Director, Director of Clinical Services, and at least three other department heads.
- Reviewed facility deaths to ensure residents’ advance directives were followed related to code status.
- Implemented a requirement that licensed nursing staff sign a Honoring Advance Directive Attestation upon hire.
- Educated facility staff on Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation with emphasis on Advance Directives.
- Educated licensed staff on Honoring Advance Directives, timeliness of initiated CPR, following physician orders, and the Code Blue process.
- Provided all-staff Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation education with 100% completion.
- Provided all-staff Resident Rights education with 100% completion.
- Provided licensed nursing staff education with 100% completion on Honoring Advance Directives, Physicians Orders, timeliness of initiated CPR, and the Code Blue process.
- Conducted Code Blue quality assurance drills.
- Implemented a requirement that licensed nurses will not work prior to attending a mock Code Blue quality assurance drill.
- Interviewed staff members to confirm training and knowledge of code status policies, roles during a Code Blue, and where to find advance directives, and confirmed receipt of abuse and neglect training.
Failure to Honor Full Code Status and Initiate CPR for Unresponsive Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s clearly documented Full Code status by not initiating CPR when the resident was found unresponsive. The resident had multiple diagnoses including Type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, abnormal gait, blindness in the right eye, shortness of breath, muscle wasting, mood disorder, and hypertension. On admission, the resident had no DNR order, was documented as alert, oriented, able to follow instructions, and capable of making healthcare decisions. Advance Care Planning notes from an APRN and a physician documented that the resident understood the difference between Full Code and DNR and elected/confirmed Full Code status. The admission evaluation, care plan, and subsequent physician notes all consistently reflected a Full Code status, and the resident’s cognition was documented as intact with a BIMS score of 14. On the night of the incident, CNAs and nursing staff described discovering the resident unresponsive in the early morning hours. One CNA reported being told by another CNA that her resident was not responding around 5:30 a.m. and, upon entering the room, found the resident not breathing and without a pulse. The CNA stated that the LPN assigned to the resident was notified but did not immediately come to the room, and when she did arrive, she used a pulse oximeter that showed an oxygen saturation of 60. The CNA reported that she repeatedly questioned the need to call a code and start CPR, but the LPN left the room to check the resident’s status and did not initiate CPR. The CNAs then went to obtain another nurse from another floor, leaving the resident alone in the room for a period of time. When they and additional nurses returned, the CNA reported that no one was performing CPR, no code blue was called, and 911 had not yet been contacted until directed by another RN. The LPN assigned to the resident stated that when notified by the CNA around 6:00 a.m., she found the resident unresponsive, with cold feet and no response to a sternal rub. She reported calling 911 from her personal cell phone at 6:04 a.m. and obtaining the crash cart, but acknowledged that she did not start CPR, stating she believed the resident was already dead, that he was a large person, and that she needed a backboard and help to move him to the floor. She also stated that she did not ask the CNAs to help move the resident and that no compressions were performed by her or the other nurses who arrived. Other nurses who responded to the scene reported that they were summoned under the impression that a resident needed to be pronounced dead, assumed the resident was a DNR, did not verify the code status themselves, did not call a code blue, and did not initiate CPR. The Medical Director later confirmed that the expectation for a Full Code resident found unresponsive was immediate initiation of CPR prior to EMS arrival and agreed that staff failed to honor the resident’s wishes for resuscitation. The surveyors determined that CPR was not initiated for approximately 35 minutes, resulting in physical pain and ultimate death for the resident and leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding. Facility policies in place at the time required staff to follow American Heart Association guidelines for CPR, to provide basic life support including CPR prior to EMS arrival in accordance with the resident’s advance directives, and to ensure CPR-certified staff were available at all times. The policies also required clear communication of code status and adherence to residents’ rights to formulate advance directives. Despite these policies and the resident’s clearly documented Full Code status, staff did not call a code blue overhead, did not promptly verify and act on the code status, and did not initiate CPR while waiting for EMS. EMS personnel, upon arrival, questioned why CPR had not been started for a Full Code resident and then initiated resuscitative efforts themselves. The surveyors concluded that the failure to initiate CPR and honor the resident’s advance directive for end-of-life care created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood of serious injury and/or death, and they cited this as an Immediate Jeopardy deficiency.
Removal Plan
- Initiated an internal investigation including resident record review, staff interviews, and notification to DCF, AHCA, and local law enforcement.
- Suspended and terminated the assigned nurse and reported the nurse’s license to the licensing board.
- Suspended and terminated two additional nurses who responded to the scene and reported their licenses to the licensing board.
- Conducted a facility audit of resident code status preferences to verify orders and care plans were correct.
- Completed a full audit of the crash carts to ensure all required items were present.
- Held an Ad Hoc QAPI meeting with the Executive Director, Director of Clinical Services, Medical Director, and department heads.
- Placed overhead page system instructions by telephones at the nurse’s station, reception area, and dining room with instructions on how to page overhead.
- Reviewed facility deaths to ensure residents’ advance directives were followed related to code status.
- Completed an audit of licensed nurse licensure and verified CPR cards were valid.
- Implemented a requirement that all new employees participate in a Code Blue drill upon hire.
- Implemented a requirement that licensed nursing staff sign a Honoring Advance Directive Attestation upon hire.
- Educated facility staff on Resident Rights, including the right to choose code status.
- Educated licensed staff on honoring advance directives, timeliness of initiating CPR, following physician orders, and the Code Blue process.
- Provided all-staff education on abuse, neglect, and exploitation with full completion.
- Provided all-staff Resident Rights education with full completion.
- Provided licensed nursing staff education on honoring advance directives, physician orders, timeliness of initiating CPR, and the Code Blue process.
- Conducted Code Blue drill quality assurance drills.
- Implemented a requirement that licensed nurses will not work prior to attending a mock Code Blue drill.
- Conducted staff interviews to confirm training and knowledge of code status policies, Code Blue roles, where to find advance directives, and abuse and neglect training.
Failure to Initiate CPR and Honor Full Code Status
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that nursing staff demonstrated competency in performing CPR and honoring a resident’s full code status. The resident involved had a documented physician progress note confirming that he understood the difference between full code and DNR and elected full code status. On the night of the incident, the resident was found unresponsive and without vital signs, yet facility staff did not initiate CPR. The facility’s LPN job description required current CPR certification and outlined responsibilities including directing CNAs, complying with policies and procedures, and participating in end-of-life care, but these expectations were not met in this event. According to interviews, a CNA who was not assigned to the resident was informed by the assigned CNA that the resident was not responding and not moving. As they proceeded to the room, they encountered the LPN at the nurses’ station, notified her of the situation, and the LPN stated she was on her way but continued what she was doing. When the LPN entered the room, she applied an oximeter and obtained an oxygen saturation of 60, which she described as “kind of low.” The CNA reported telling the LPN that the resident “is not here” and asking if they needed to call a code. The LPN left the room to check the resident’s code status, returned and confirmed he was full code, but still did not initiate CPR. The CNA stated that no one called a code blue, no overhead page was made, and no staff began CPR before EMS arrived. The LPN later stated she found the resident unresponsive, with cold feet and no response to sternal rub, and that she called 911, obtained the crash cart, and asked a CNA to get another nurse. She reported that she did not start CPR because she believed the resident was already dead, said she needed a backboard and help to move the resident due to his size, and did not ask the CNAs to assist. She acknowledged that she did not call a code, did not perform compressions, and that all staff present “did not do anything” while waiting for EMS. Other nurses who responded to the room, including an RN and another LPN, stated they did not start CPR, assumed the resident was a DNR based on how the situation was presented, did not verify the code status themselves, and did not call a code blue. The RN reported that she did not initiate CPR because she assumed the resident was a DNR and was focused on the idea that she was being asked to pronounce death, and only after contacting the DON did she learn the resident was full code and was told to start CPR, at which point EMS arrived. EMS personnel questioned why CPR had not been started if the resident was full code. The medical director stated that the expectation was that immediate CPR should be started for a full code resident and that nurses are not to pronounce death or rely on signs such as cold extremities, but instead should confirm code status and initiate CPR.
Removal Plan
- Initiated an internal investigation including resident record review, staff interviews, and notifications to DCF, AHCA, and local law enforcement.
- Suspended and terminated the assigned nurse and reported the nurse’s license to the licensing board.
- Suspended and terminated two additional nurses who responded to the scene and reported their licenses to the licensing board.
- Completed a facility-wide audit of resident code status preferences and verified that orders and care plans were correct.
- Reviewed residents with Do Not Resuscitate preferences to ensure a valid Florida DNRO was physically available at the facility.
- Conducted an audit of the facility’s crash carts to ensure all required items were present.
- Held an Ad Hoc QAPI meeting with the Executive Director, Director of Clinical Services, and Medical Director.
- Placed overhead paging system instructions by telephones at the nurse’s station, reception area, and dining room with instructions on how to page overhead.
- Reviewed facility deaths to ensure residents’ advance directives were followed related to code status.
- Completed an audit of licensed nurse licensure and verified cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) cards were valid.
- Implemented a requirement that all new employees participate in a Code Blue drill upon hire.
- Implemented a requirement that licensed nursing staff sign an Honoring Advance Directive Attestation upon hire.
- Educated facility staff on Resident Rights, including the right to choose code status.
- Educated licensed staff on honoring advance directives, timeliness of initiating CPR, following physician orders, and the code blue process.
- Provided all-staff education on abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
- Provided all-staff Resident Rights education.
- Provided licensed nursing staff education on honoring advance directives, physician orders, timeliness of initiating CPR, and the code blue process.
- Conducted code blue quality assurance drills.
- Implemented a requirement that licensed nurses will not work prior to attending a mock code blue quality assurance drill.
- Conducted staff interviews to verify knowledge of facility policies regarding code status, roles during a code blue, and where to find advance directives, and confirmed staff received abuse and neglect training.
Incomplete ADL and Meal Documentation for Dependent, Incontinent Resident
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to maintain complete and accurate medical records for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including Parkinson's disease, sarcopenia, cognitive communication deficit, dementia, history of TIA, and cerebral infarction without residual deficits. The resident was admitted and discharged within a few days, and review of the toileting task documentation for that period showed no recorded incontinence care during 8 out of 10 opportunities. Review of the nutrition/eating task documentation for the same period showed no record that the resident received meals during 7 out of 9 opportunities. There were no documented refusals of care or meals. Staff interviewed on later dates did not remember the resident due to the short stay and could not describe the care provided. The DON stated she was not familiar with the resident and confirmed that documentation should verify whether care was provided or refused, and that there was no reason for care opportunities to be left blank. The resident’s MDS showed severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 04), dependence for toileting hygiene, and always incontinent for bowel and bladder. The care plan identified potential/actual skin integrity impairment related to decreased cognition, mobility, incontinence, pain, and weakness, with interventions to keep skin clean and dry. Facility policies on incontinence, ADLs, and serving meals required provision of appropriate toileting and nutritional care, but the facility did not provide a policy on documentation, and the existing record did not allow determination of whether incontinence care and meals were actually provided.
Deficiency in Kitchen Sanitation and Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment and surfaces in a clean and sanitary manner, as observed during a tour of the kitchen. The handwashing sink in the food preparation area was found on the floor, with exposed materials and an uncapped drainpipe, and had been out of service for approximately two weeks. The alternative sink in the dishwashing area was blocked by a dish rack cart, lacked paper towels, and had food debris partially blocking the water flow. Additionally, the commercial ice maker had visible dry white, tan, and black material around its perimeter and on its exterior surface, and the kitchen lighting was inadequate with several non-functioning fluorescent lights. The kitchen floor drain in the dessert area had standing liquid, and the industrial can opener was rusted with a black substance around the blade. The walk-in refrigerator and freezer contained a used glove, trash, and an open beverage can, with floors covered in a thick layer of black, grey, and brown substance. The bottom shelves of metal food preparation tables had rust spots and crumbs, and a sanitizing bucket contained cloudy liquid and food debris. The kitchen floor perimeters and areas under equipment had debris and dirt buildup, with sticky and discolored grout between tiles. Interviews with staff revealed that there was no schedule for deep cleaning the kitchen, and concerns were raised about the night shift not cleaning properly. The Dietary Supervisor confirmed that a cleaning schedule was posted but not consistently followed, and the Nursing Home Administrator acknowledged awareness of the sink issue. Despite documentation indicating that daily cleaning tasks were completed, observations and staff interviews contradicted this, highlighting a lack of adherence to cleaning protocols.
Plan Of Correction
The handwashing sink located in the food preparation area was repaired on by maintenance. The dishwashing area sink was cleaned, and no objects are blocking access to the sink. The paper towel dispenser was filled with paper towels, and a trash can was placed next to the sink. The commercial ice maker, ice storage bin, and floor were cleaned on. Kitchen lighting was replaced by maintenance on. The floor drain in the dessert prep area was cleaned, and the grate cover was replaced. An industrial can opener was purchased on and is cleaned daily and as needed. The walk-in refrigerator and freezer, including the floors, were cleaned on. The food preparation table, including bottom shelves, was cleaned. The red sanitizing bucket was emptied, and the kitchen floor, including perimeters, was cleaned. The Nursing Home Administrator and Dietary Manager completed a kitchen inspection and kitchen sanitation audit on. Any areas of concern were addressed as they were identified. On, the Nursing Home Administrator completed education with the Dietary Manager related to the components of this regulation, with emphasis on kitchen sanitation, ensuring a working handwashing sink was available in the kitchen and adequate lighting in the kitchen. Education was conducted on by the Nursing Home Administrator on the component of this regulation, with emphasis on maintaining proper sanitation standards throughout the food production and serving areas of the kitchen to include service tables that are clean, free from rust, working handwashing sinks, and adequate lighting. The Dietary Manager/designee will conduct a sanitation audit daily for one week, then weekly for a month, and every two weeks for two months. A report on sanitation audit results will be submitted by the Dietary Manager to the Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee monthly for one quarter until substantial compliance is met. The findings of these quality monitorings will be reported to the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement Committee monthly. Quality monitoring schedule modified based on findings with quarterly monitoring by the Regional Director of Clinical Services/designee.
Medication Labeling Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all drugs used were labeled in accordance with clinical professional standards. During an inspection of a medication cart on two floors, it was observed that two translucent brown medication bottles had labels with spaces to write the medication expiration date and the date opened, but no information was filled in. Additionally, an injector pen was found with a label to document the 'date opened' and instructions to discard after 28 days, but these dates were not documented. Staff A, a Registered Nurse, admitted to not knowing the expiration dates for the medications and acknowledged that the labels should have been dated. Further inspection on the second floor revealed another injector pen without the open date and discard date listed. Staff B, an LPN, confirmed that the medication should be discarded 28 days after first use and immediately removed the injector pen from the cart. The Director of Nursing stated that the facility expects staff to write the medication expiration dates on the labels when medications are first used. The facility's policy on medication administration requires identifying expiration dates and notifying the nurse manager if medications are expired.
Plan Of Correction
Identified and injector pens were discarded on 04/23/2025. On 04/23/2025, new medications were provided by the pharmacy and dated appropriately. Quality review was conducted by the Director of Nursing/designee of current medication carts to ensure proper labeling/storage of drugs and biologicals, with emphasis on medications being dated at time of opening and discarding medication when expired. Any concerns noted were addressed as identified. Current Licensed Nurses were re-educated by the Director of Nursing/designee on the components of this regulation, with emphasis on ensuring proper labeling/storage of drugs and biologicals, with emphasis on medications being dated at time of opening and discarded at time of expiration. The Director of Nursing/designee will conduct quality monitoring of medication carts to ensure proper labeling/storage of drugs and biologicals, with emphasis on medications not being dated when opened and expired drugs twice weekly for 4 weeks, weekly for 2 weeks; then weekly and PRN as indicated. The findings of these quality monitoring activities will be reported to the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement Committee monthly. The quality monitoring schedule will be modified based on findings, with quarterly monitoring by the Regional Director of Clinical Services/designee.
Medication Labeling Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all drugs used were labeled in accordance with clinical professional standards. During an inspection of a medication cart on two floors, it was observed that two translucent brown medication bottles had labels with spaces to write the medication expiration date and the date the medication was first used, but no information was written on them. Additionally, an injector pen was found with a label to document the 'date opened' and instructions to discard after 28 days, but the necessary dates were not documented. Staff A, a Registered Nurse, admitted to not knowing the expiration dates and acknowledged that the labels should have been dated. Further observations on a second-floor medication storage cart revealed another injector pen without the open date and discard date listed. Staff B, an LPN, confirmed that the pen should be discarded 28 days after first use and immediately removed it from the cart. The Director of Nursing stated that the facility expects staff to write the medication expiration dates on the labels when medications are first used. The facility's policy on Medication Administration requires medications to be administered by licensed nurses in accordance with professional standards to prevent contamination, but this was not adhered to in these instances.
Plan Of Correction
Identified and injector pens were discarded on. New medications were provided by the pharmacy and dated appropriately. Quality review was conducted on, by Director of Nursing/designee, of current medication carts to ensure proper labeling/storage of drugs and biologicals with emphasis on medications being dated at time of opening and discarding medication when expired. Any concerns noted were addressed as identified. Current Licensed Nurses were re-educated by Director of Nursing/designee on the components of this regulation with emphasis on ensuring proper labeling/storage of drugs and biologicals with emphasis on medications being dated at time of opening and discarded at time of expiration. The Director of Nursing/designee to conduct quality monitoring of medication carts to ensure proper labeling/storage of drugs and biologicals with emphasis on medications not being dated when opened and expired drugs twice weekly x 4 weeks, weekly x 2 weeks; then weekly and PRN as indicated. The findings of these quality monitorings to be reported to the Quality Assurance/Performance improvement Committee monthly. Quality Monitoring schedule modified based on findings with quarterly monitoring by the Regional Director of Clinical Services/designee.
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.



