Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Of Tampa
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Tampa, Florida.
- Location
- 4411 N Habana Ave, Tampa, Florida 33614
- CMS Provider Number
- 105234
- Inspections on file
- 31
- Latest survey
- April 21, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Of Tampa during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A cognitively intact resident with chronic medical conditions reported having no money available for personal needs after admission, despite previously receiving higher income and being entitled to a state Personal Needs Allowance (PNA) in addition to SSI. The resident and a family member stated only $30 per month was received, and the resident reported going two years without any additional funds. The Business Office Manager confirmed the resident should receive a $130 state PNA but was not, and business office records lacked documentation of any timely inquiry or follow-up to resolve the missing PNA. The Social Services Director had not spoken with the resident about the concern and was unaware of any complaint, and the facility did not provide a policy outlining social services expectations related to such financial support.
The facility failed to ensure smoking safety for three residents, leading to a deficiency in maintaining a safe environment. A resident was found with smoking materials in her room, and two others were observed smoking without proper supervision. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in smoking supervision and a lack of documented assessments for smoking safety measures.
A resident undergoing dialysis had an inaccurate care plan that failed to reflect a physician-ordered fluid restriction and omitted the resident's desired discharge location. The MDS coordinator and Social Services Director acknowledged these discrepancies, which were not in line with the facility's care plan policy.
The facility did not ensure accurate PASRR evaluations for two residents with serious mental illnesses and dementia. One resident had diagnoses including schizophrenia and dementia, but a Level II PASRR was not completed. Another resident with similar conditions also did not receive the necessary Level II evaluation. Staff interviews confirmed these oversights, which were contrary to the facility's policy requiring such evaluations.
A resident dependent on staff for all ADLs due to multiple health conditions was primarily cared for by private sitters hired by the family, rather than CNAs as required by the care plan. The sitters performed tasks such as turning, incontinence care, and range of motion exercises without consistent oversight from facility staff, and the NHA was unaware of the extent of their involvement. The facility's policy did not mandate these sitters to provide necessary care, leading to a deficiency in ensuring qualified care.
Two residents in an LTC facility were not provided with individualized activities, leading to a deficiency in enhancing their quality of life. One resident, weakened by cancer treatments, was not offered bedside activities despite a care plan indicating the need for staff assistance. Another resident, who only spoke Creole, was left without activities and had a care plan that was not followed due to language barriers. The facility's policy on activities was not adhered to, resulting in a failure to meet the residents' individual needs.
The facility failed to provide necessary emergency tracheostomy supplies for three residents, leading to deficiencies in respiratory care. A resident did not have the required tracheostomy set in their room, another resident's room lacked essential respiratory care equipment, and a third resident's suction canister was nearly full with no replacement available. The facility's policies and physician orders were not followed, indicating a failure to maintain adequate respiratory supplies.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and requiring substantial assistance fell from bed during care, resulting in a scalp hematoma and clavicle fracture. The CNA attempted to provide care alone, despite the care plan indicating the need for two-person assistance. The incident occurred when the resident rolled out of bed while the CNA was calling for help. The facility investigated the incident and provided staff education on abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation.
The facility failed to ensure a safe, clean, and homelike environment for residents on the 3rd and 4th floors. Observations revealed lifting flooring and damaged walls in rooms 409 and 311-B, which were not reported or addressed in a timely manner. Staff interviews indicated a lack of awareness and communication regarding these maintenance concerns.
The facility failed to ensure accurate resident assessments and discharge documentation for three residents. Two residents were observed with bed rails up, contrary to their MDS assessments, and another resident's discharge status was inaccurately documented as being sent to a hospital instead of home.
The facility failed to obtain informed consent and properly assess bedrail use for three residents, leading to the installation of bedrails without documented alternative methods or consent. Observations and interviews revealed that the residents' care plans and medical records did not reflect the use of bedrails, and staff were uncertain about the assessment process.
A facility failed to provide a necessary mobility device for a resident with Multiple Sclerosis, obesity, and Lupus Erythematosus. Despite the resident's care plan indicating the need for a high back wheelchair and her quarterly MDS assessment showing recent use of a wheelchair, the resident was left without one. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies and a lack of clarity regarding the provision of the wheelchair.
A resident with intact cognition reported missing clothes multiple times, but the facility failed to resolve the grievance to the resident's satisfaction. Despite filing an official grievance and the facility's attempts to address the issue, the resident remained dissatisfied with the response and continued to report missing items.
The facility failed to ensure accurate Level I PASRR assessments for three residents with serious mental illness and dementia, leading to missed Level II evaluations. Errors were acknowledged by the DON and Social Service Director, who cited confusion during the PASRR completion process.
The facility failed to update a resident's care plan after the discontinuation of a physician's order for a foot brace. Despite the resident's cognitive intactness and confirmation of not wanting to wear the shoe, the care plan still included outdated interventions. Interviews with staff revealed that the care plan should have been revised to reflect the resident's current health status.
A resident with an ADL self-care performance deficit did not receive necessary nail care despite requests and visible need. The facility lacked clear guidelines, and staff were unclear about their responsibilities regarding nail care.
The facility failed to ensure active and ongoing communication with hospice providers for two residents, resulting in missing hospice notes in medical records and inadequate pain management for a resident with Alzheimer's Disease. Staff interviews and observations confirmed the lack of proper documentation and communication, breaching the facility's Hospice Agreement.
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5%, resulting in a 7.41% error rate. Two residents received incorrect medications due to a nurse's failure to verify the correct dosages and types as per physician's orders.
Failure to Ensure Resident Received Entitled Personal Needs Allowance
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide necessary medically-related social services to ensure a resident received their entitled personal needs allowance (PNA). A cognitively intact resident, admitted in 06/2024 with diagnoses including need for assistance with personal care, cervical spinal stenosis, and chronic kidney disease, reported having no money coming to the facility despite previously receiving $800 per month before admission and then only $30 from Social Security. The resident stated that for two years in the facility he had received no money and had been told there were no additional funds. A family member also reported that the resident only received $30 per month. The resident’s Minimum Data Set showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating he was cognitively intact at the time of these reports. The Business Office Manager confirmed the resident was an SSI recipient with $30 monthly income and that he should also receive a $130 state PNA through the Department of Children and Families, but acknowledged the resident was not receiving this PNA. Business office notes showed Medicaid coverage authorized effective 08/2024, but contained no documentation of any inquiry or follow-up regarding the missing $130 PNA. The BOM stated she had discussed the reduced SSI check with the resident and family in 05/2025 but did not document the call, and the Social Services Director reported she had not spoken with the resident and was unsure whether any complaint had been received. The facility was unable to provide a policy or procedure outlining social services expectations related to this issue. Surveyor contact with the former DCF representative revealed that PNA issues could be easily corrected in the system, but the facility’s records did not show effective action or documented efforts to resolve the resident’s lack of PNA.
Inadequate Smoking Safety Measures and Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a process was in place for smoking safety for three residents, leading to a deficiency in maintaining a safe environment free from accident hazards. Resident #8 was observed with cigarettes and a lighter in her room, despite not being listed as an active smoker in the facility's records. She admitted to occasionally smoking outside the designated smoking area and providing cigarettes and lighters to other residents. This indicates a lack of supervision and control over smoking materials within the facility. Resident #29 was seen with a lighter while waiting to access the smoking patio, and during a scheduled smoking time, no staff or residents were present in the designated area. This suggests inadequate supervision during smoking times, as well as a failure to adhere to the facility's smoking policy, which requires staff supervision during smoking activities. Resident #164 was observed smoking on the patio without staff presence, further highlighting the lack of supervision and adherence to safety protocols. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in the smoking supervision process and a lack of clear assessment procedures for determining residents' need for smoking safety measures, such as aprons. The Director of Nursing admitted that there was no formal smoking assessment documented, and observations of smoking sessions were not recorded. The facility's policy mandates that smoking materials be kept in a secure location and that residents should not possess them within the building, yet this was not enforced, contributing to the deficiency.
Inaccurate Care Plan for Dialysis Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an accurate comprehensive care plan for a resident undergoing dialysis. The resident, who was admitted and readmitted with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure and end-stage renal disease, was observed to have a care plan that inaccurately reflected his fluid restriction status. Despite having a physician order for a 1200 cc fluid restriction, the care plan incorrectly marked fluid restriction as 'no'. This discrepancy was acknowledged by the MDS coordinator, who confirmed that the care plan needed correction to align with the physician's orders. Additionally, the discharge planning section of the resident's care plan was incomplete. The resident expressed a desire to be discharged to a facility closer to his girlfriend, a preference he had communicated to the staff. However, this information was not documented in the care plan. The Social Services Director confirmed that the discharge location should have been included in the care plan and acknowledged the need for correction. The facility's policy mandates that discharge planning be part of the care plan process, which was not adhered to in this case.
Inaccurate PASRR Evaluations for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #67 was initially admitted with diagnoses including unspecified dementia, depressive episodes, schizophrenia, and unspecified psychosis. Despite these diagnoses, the Level I PASRR did not indicate the need for a Level II evaluation, which was incorrect according to the facility's staff. The resident's care plan included interventions for behavioral issues and psychotropic medication management, but the oversight in PASRR evaluation meant that the necessary Level II PASRR was not completed, as confirmed by Staff A during an interview. Similarly, Resident #75 was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including mood disorder, dementia, schizophrenia, and anxiety disorder. The Level I PASRR for this resident also failed to trigger a Level II evaluation, despite the presence of serious mental illness and dementia. Interviews with the Social Services Director and Assistant confirmed that a Level II evaluation was required but not completed. The facility's policy mandates a review of PASRR forms for serious mental illness and intellectual disability, which was not adhered to in these cases, resulting in the deficiency.
Deficiency in Qualified Care Provision for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that services provided to a resident were performed by individuals with the necessary skills, experience, knowledge, and licensure. This deficiency was observed in the care of a resident who was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADL) due to multiple health conditions, including a tracheostomy, dementia, and chronic kidney disease. The resident's care plan required assistance from two staff members for ADLs, yet observations revealed that private sitters hired by the family were performing these tasks without the involvement of certified nursing assistants (CNAs) as required by the care plan. Interviews with the private sitters indicated that they were responsible for the resident's ADL care, including turning the resident, providing incontinence care, and performing range of motion exercises. The sitters were not consistently monitored or supported by facility staff, and the Nursing Home Administrator was unaware of the extent of care being provided by these sitters. The facility's policy on visitation and essential caregivers did not require these sitters to provide necessary care, highlighting a gap in ensuring that care was delivered by qualified personnel as per the resident's care plan.
Failure to Provide Individualized Activities for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an ongoing activity program that met the individual interests and needs of two residents, leading to a deficiency in enhancing their quality of life. Resident #154, who preferred to stay in bed due to weakness from recent cancer treatments, expressed a desire to participate in activities but was not offered bedside activities by the facility staff. Despite having a care plan that included participation in activities of choice and requiring staff assistance, there was no documentation of Resident #154's participation in group or individual activities throughout the month. The Activities Director admitted that one-on-one activities were not documented in the resident's medical record, and the weekly activity log did not include Resident #154's name. Resident #472, who only spoke Creole, was observed lying in bed throughout the day without being provided activities, with the television on an English-speaking program. The resident's care plan indicated a need for assistance with activities due to cognitive deficits and required physical assistance. However, the Activities Director was unaware of the resident's language needs and had not implemented a process to ensure that room visits were conducted or that activity interventions were followed. The resident's representative confirmed that the resident only understood Creole and expressed a desire for the resident to be more involved in activities. The Director of Nursing stated that all residents should be offered the opportunity to participate in activities, and if a resident refused, it should be documented with follow-up to encourage involvement. The facility's policy on activities emphasized the need for sensitivity and understanding of each resident's individual needs, including medical, emotional, spiritual, therapeutic, and recreational needs. However, the facility failed to adhere to this policy, resulting in a deficiency in providing appropriate activities for the residents.
Deficiency in Respiratory Care Due to Lack of Supplies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary emergency tracheostomy supplies for three residents, leading to deficiencies in respiratory care. Resident #142 did not have the required tracheostomy set of the same size and a smaller size in their room, as confirmed by Staff E, RN/UM. The resident's care plan and physician orders specified the need for an ambu bag and replacement trach at the bedside, which were not present during the observation. Resident #25's room was found lacking essential respiratory care equipment, including a dry humidifier bottle and missing suction catheters. The resident's physician orders required continuous humidified oxygen, which was not being administered as prescribed. Staff O, RN, was unable to locate the necessary equipment, indicating a failure to adhere to the care plan and physician orders. Resident #156's suction canister was observed to be nearly full with a dark pink liquid, and no replacement canister was available in the room. Staff P, RN, had to leave the floor to obtain a new canister, highlighting a lack of readily available supplies. The facility's policy required changing the suction canister every 72 hours or when 3/4 full, which was not followed. Additionally, the supply closet on the floor was found to be lacking extra canisters and suction catheters, further demonstrating the facility's failure to maintain adequate respiratory supplies for residents with tracheostomy needs.
Resident Fall Due to Inadequate Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent a fall resulting in injury to a resident who had severe cognitive impairment and required substantial assistance with activities of daily living. The resident, who had been admitted to the facility in 2017, had a history of dementia, muscle wasting, and lack of coordination, among other conditions. The care plan for the resident indicated the need for a total mechanical lift with two-person assistance for transfers and two-person assistance for bed mobility. However, during an incident on 07/16/2024, a CNA attempted to provide care alone, which led to the resident rolling out of bed and sustaining injuries. On the day of the incident, the CNA was providing evening care and noticed the resident had a large bowel movement. The CNA rolled the resident onto her side to clean her, but the resident rolled out of bed before the CNA could stop her. The CNA had called out for assistance but did not receive help in time. The resident fell to the floor, resulting in a scalp hematoma and a clavicle fracture. The CNA reported that the resident had never rolled out of bed before, and the bed was raised to an ergonomic height for care. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident was known to require two-person assistance for care, especially when being cleaned. The Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the CNA initially thought she could manage the care alone but called for help when realizing the extent of the task. The incident was investigated, and it was determined that the fall was unsubstantiated for neglect, although staff received education on abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation following the event.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for residents on the 3rd and 4th floors. Observations revealed that the flooring in room 409 was lifting and could be freely moved, posing a potential hazard. Additionally, the wall behind bed B in room 409 had several deep scratch marks with missing paint and visible debris on the floor. Despite the facility's electronic maintenance system and concierge rounds, these issues were not reported or addressed in a timely manner. Interviews with staff, including the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager (UM), and Maintenance Assistant (MA), indicated a lack of awareness and communication regarding the maintenance concerns in room 409. The NHA and RN UM were unsure if the maintenance staff were aware of the issues, and the MA only became aware of the flooring concern on 5/16/2024. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that environmental or maintenance concerns should be documented in the facility's electronic maintenance log, but this process was not effectively followed. Further observations in room 311-B revealed damaged walls with patches of paint coming off and deep scratches. Staff interviews indicated that daily inspections by Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and Unit Managers were supposed to identify such concerns, but the damaged walls in room 311-B were not noticed or reported. The facility's policy on maintaining a safe, clean, and comfortable environment was not adhered to, as evidenced by the unaddressed maintenance issues in the resident rooms.
Inaccurate Resident Assessments and Discharge Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of resident comprehensive assessments for three residents. Resident #64 was observed with bilateral, one-quarter length bed rails up, despite the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicating that bed rails were not used. This discrepancy was confirmed through multiple observations and interviews with the resident's representative. Similarly, Resident #81 was observed with bed rails up, although the annual MDS assessment also indicated that bed rails were not used. These observations were made on different days, confirming the inconsistency in the documentation and actual use of bed rails for both residents. Additionally, the facility failed to accurately document the discharge status of Resident #158. The medical record indicated that the resident was discharged to a short-term general hospital, while progress notes and physician orders confirmed that the resident was discharged home. This inconsistency was verified through an interview with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and Clinical Reimbursement Specialist (CRS). The facility's policies and procedures for discharge management and resident assessment were reviewed, highlighting the need for accurate documentation and coordination by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) and nursing staff.
Failure to Obtain Informed Consent and Properly Assess Bedrail Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure informed consent for the use of bedrails was obtained prior to their installation and did not properly assess residents for bedrail use. This deficiency was identified for three residents who had bedrails installed without documented informed consent or proper assessment. Resident #64, who had diagnoses including dementia and anxiety disorder, was observed with bedrails up, but there was no documentation of alternative methods tried or informed consent obtained. The resident's care plan and MDS assessment did not reflect the use of bedrails, and the resident's representative confirmed that they were not informed of the risks or asked to provide consent. Similarly, Resident #81, with diagnoses including psychosis and hemiplegia, was observed with bedrails up without any documentation of alternative methods or informed consent. The resident's care plan and MDS assessment did not address the use of bedrails, and the Occupational Therapy Plan of Care did not mention bedrails either. Staff interviews revealed uncertainty about the assessment process and the necessity of bedrails for this resident. Resident #311, who had multiple fractures and dementia, was also observed with bedrails up without proper assessment or informed consent. The resident's care plan and medical record did not document the use of bedrails or alternative methods tried. Staff interviews indicated that the bedrails were already installed when the resident was admitted, and there was no clear understanding of the assessment process for bedrail use. The facility's policy required thorough assessment and informed consent, which were not followed in these cases.
Failure to Provide Necessary Mobility Device
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accommodate the needs of Resident #39, who was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS), obesity, and Lupus Erythematosus, by not providing a necessary mobility device. During an interview, Resident #39 expressed a desire to plan outings for the summer but stated that the facility had taken her wheelchair, leaving her without one. Observations confirmed that a wheelchair was not present in her room, despite her care plan indicating the need for a high back wheelchair due to her medical conditions. The care plan also specified the use of a wheelchair for locomotion and a total mechanical lift with two staff members for transferring. The resident's quarterly MDS assessment indicated she was cognitively intact and had used a wheelchair for mobility within the last seven days. Interviews with facility staff revealed inconsistencies and a lack of clarity regarding the provision of the wheelchair. The Occupational Therapist (OT) mentioned that residents are assessed for the type of chair they need but did not provide a clear reason why Resident #39 did not have a wheelchair. The Director of Nursing (DON) stated that assistive devices are provided based on therapy assessments and should remain with the resident for their entire stay, even if not used frequently. However, the DON could not explain why Resident #39 did not have a wheelchair available for her use, despite her documented need and the facility's policy.
Failure to Resolve Resident Grievance Regarding Missing Clothing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to resolve a resident grievance regarding missing clothing in a timely manner. Resident #143, who was admitted with a primary diagnosis of muscle wasting and atrophy and had intact cognition, reported missing clothes to the staff on multiple occasions. Despite the resident's repeated complaints and a detailed list of missing items, the facility did not locate the clothing or provide a satisfactory resolution. The resident expressed frustration over the ongoing issue and reluctance to send more clothes to the laundry due to fear of further losses. The grievance was officially filed on 04/29/24, and the facility's records indicated it was resolved by 05/08/24. However, the resident continued to report missing items and dissatisfaction with the facility's response. The facility offered items from the lost and found, which the resident declined, and there was a lack of clear communication regarding reimbursement or reordering of the missing items. The resident stated that the facility had not mentioned anything about helping him reorder the missing clothes. Interviews with staff, including the Unit Manager, Social Services Director, and Administrator, confirmed the resident's grievances and the facility's attempts to address the issue. However, the facility's efforts, including searching the laundry and lost and found, were unsuccessful, and the resident remained dissatisfied. The facility's grievance policy outlined the process for handling such concerns, but in this case, the resolution was not achieved to the resident's satisfaction.
Inaccurate PASRR Assessments for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of Level I Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessments for three residents. Resident #24 was admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, bipolar disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. The Level I PASRR form incorrectly indicated that the resident did not have a secondary diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer's, and no request for a Level II PASRR evaluation was made. The Director of Nursing and the Social Service Director acknowledged the error, attributing it to confusion during the PASRR completion process with assistance from an outside vendor. Resident #81 was admitted with diagnoses including unspecified psychosis, dementia, anxiety disorder, depressive episodes, and insomnia. The Level I PASRR assessment did not trigger a Level II PASRR evaluation despite the presence of serious mental illness diagnoses. Similarly, Resident #38, who had major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, vascular dementia, and schizoaffective disorder, had an incorrectly completed Level I PASRR form. The Social Services Director confirmed the error and submitted a Level II screening after the oversight was identified. The facility's PASRR policy mandates a Level II PASRR for residents with serious mental illness and dementia, which was not followed in these cases.
Failure to Update Care Plan After Discontinuation of Physician's Order
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to review and revise the care plan for a resident who was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and multiple sclerosis. The resident was observed without a foot brace, which was previously ordered but later discontinued. Despite the discontinuation of the physician's order for the foot brace, the care plan was not updated to reflect this change. The resident, who was cognitively intact, confirmed that she did not want to wear the shoe at the time of the interview. However, the care plan still included interventions related to the use of the foot brace, which was no longer applicable. Interviews with staff, including an LPN and the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed that the care plan should have been revised when the physician's order for the foot brace was discontinued. The facility's policy mandates that care plans be reviewed and revised periodically to reflect the resident's current health status. The failure to update the care plan resulted in outdated and irrelevant interventions being listed, which could potentially impact the resident's care and well-being.
Failure to Provide Nail Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary nail care for a resident who was unable to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) independently. On 05/13/24, the resident expressed the need for her nails to be cut, stating that staff did not offer to cut her nails. On 05/15/24, the resident was observed with elongated, uneven, and jagged nails with visible dirt underneath. Despite the resident's request to a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) to cut her nails, the CNA stated she did not have a nail clipper and did not follow up on the resident's offer to use her own clippers. The resident's care plan indicated that she required assistance with personal hygiene, including nail care during bathing and as necessary, but this was not adhered to by the staff. Further investigation revealed that the CNAs were not responsible for cutting nails, as stated by the Director of Nursing (DON). Instead, the responsibility fell on the nurse or nurse manager. However, this protocol was not communicated effectively to the staff, leading to the resident's unmet need for nail care. The facility did not provide a policy related to nail care, indicating a lack of clear guidelines and procedures for staff to follow in such situations.
Failure to Ensure Communication with Hospice Providers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure active and ongoing communication between the facility and hospice providers for two residents receiving hospice services. Resident #18, who has a history of malignant neoplasm of the lung, cognitive communication deficit, and other conditions, reported that hospice assists with her care. However, a review of her medical record revealed no hospice notes or communication forms. Staff interviews confirmed the absence of hospice documentation, and the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that hospice notes should be part of the resident's medical record or placed in a hospice binder. The facility's Hospice Agreement mandates ongoing communication and documentation, which was not adhered to in this case. Resident #24, diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease, reported severe pain levels of 10 during interviews. Despite having physician orders for multiple pain medications, the resident's pain was not adequately managed. Staff interviews revealed that the hospice nurse did not leave visit reports at the facility, and the Unit Manager was unaware of a hospice book. Additionally, a nurse was observed struggling to administer a Tylenol pill to the resident, who had difficulty swallowing. The DON stated that hospice staff should communicate with facility staff and leave visit notes, and that residents should be comfortable at all times with appropriate pain management. The lack of proper communication and documentation between the facility and hospice providers led to deficiencies in the care of both residents. The facility did not maintain hospice notes in the medical records, and there was inadequate pain management for Resident #24. These failures indicate a breach of the facility's Hospice Agreement and a lack of adherence to expected protocols for coordinating care with hospice services.
Medication Administration Errors
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5%, resulting in a medication administration error rate of 7.41%. During the observation of 27 medication administration opportunities, two errors were identified involving two residents. Resident #56 received an incorrect dose of folic acid, being administered 400 mcg instead of the prescribed 1 mg. Resident #4 was given Ferrous sulfate 325 mg instead of the prescribed Polysaccharide iron complex 150 mg. These errors were observed during medication administration by Staff K, RN, who did not verify the correct medications and dosages as per the physician's orders. Resident #56 was admitted with diagnoses of muscle wasting, atrophy, and polyosteoarthritis. The medication error for this resident involved the administration of folic acid at an incorrect dosage. Similarly, Resident #4, who was admitted with diagnoses of atrial fibrillation and cognitive communication deficit, received the wrong type of iron supplement. Staff K, RN, failed to follow the facility's policy of verifying the right dose, right medication, right route, right time, and right resident before administering the medications. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that nursing staff are expected to verify the five rights of medication administration and compare the medication with the resident's medication administration record and physician's orders. The facility's policy on medication administration, effective since November 2018, mandates that medications be administered as prescribed and verified three times before administration. The failure to adhere to these procedures led to the identified medication errors.
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.



