Viera Del Mar Health And Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Viera, Florida.
- Location
- 2355 Vidina Drive, Viera, Florida 32940
- CMS Provider Number
- 106123
- Inspections on file
- 29
- Latest survey
- January 22, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 8
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Viera Del Mar Health And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to consistently provide and document ordered wound and dermatologic treatments for two residents. One resident with a pressure ulcer and lower leg abrasions had physician orders for specific cleansing and dressings, as well as Dakins and zinc oxide applications, yet the TAR showed multiple missed treatments across several shifts. Another resident with tinea pedis had a dermatology order for daily Ketoconazole cream to both feet, but interviews with multiple LPNs revealed conflicting accounts about application, an unopened tube of cream, lack of refills, and uncertainty about prior use, while family reported the resident did not receive the cream for several days after admission.
Multiple residents experienced prolonged call light response times and unmet care needs due to insufficient nursing staff. Residents with recent hospitalizations, pain management needs, and respiratory conditions reported significant delays in receiving assistance, while staff described heavy workloads and frequent understaffing. Resident Council discussions and facility records confirmed ongoing concerns about staffing shortages and their impact on timely care.
A resident with multiple psychiatric and neurological diagnoses was administered several classes of medications, including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, antibiotics, and opioids. The MDS assessment failed to accurately document all medication classes received during the lookback period, omitting antipsychotic, antidepressant, and opioid medications, despite facility policy requiring comprehensive and accurate assessments.
A resident with a history of SMI and multiple psychiatric diagnoses experienced significant behavioral changes and new mental health diagnoses after hospital readmission. Despite ongoing psychiatric symptoms and interventions, the facility did not complete or update the required Level I PASARR, and key documentation was left incomplete. Staff interviews confirmed the oversight, and there was no policy in place to clarify responsibility for PASARR updates.
An LPN failed to remove gloves and perform hand hygiene when exiting and reentering a resident's room during the setup of an IV iron infusion. The LPN handled equipment and moved a trash can while wearing the same gloves, contrary to infection control protocols. The DON confirmed that staff are expected to remove gloves and perform hand hygiene before leaving a resident's room, and that all staff receive related education.
The facility experienced repeated deficiencies in the accuracy of medical record documentation due to insufficient monitoring and oversight by the QAPI team. Despite providing education to nursing staff and planning audits, the same issue was cited in multiple surveys, and the Administrator was not aware of previous deficiencies, indicating a lack of effective tracking and follow-through on corrective actions.
A resident with multiple medical conditions was discharged without a complete written discharge summary or medication list, and key sections of the discharge documentation were left blank. The resident's designated representative was not notified in advance, and there was no evidence that discharge instructions or medications were provided. Staff interviews confirmed the discharge process was not properly followed, and required documentation and communication were lacking.
A resident with complex medical needs was discharged without complete documentation of their discharge plan, disposition, and ADLs. Key sections of the Discharge Summary were left blank, including areas related to skin evaluation, treatments, cognitive/psychosocial status, and medication reconciliation. There was no evidence that the Discharge Summary was provided to or signed by the resident or staff, and CNA documentation of ADLs was incomplete across multiple shifts. The DON acknowledged these documentation gaps, which did not meet federal requirements for medical record maintenance.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of falls was not provided with adequate supervision or effective fall prevention measures, resulting in a fall that caused a facial laceration and nasal fracture. Despite being identified as a high fall risk, the facility did not increase supervision or implement specific interventions, and staff were not directed to check on the resident within specific timeframes. The facility's Falling Leaf Program was not effectively communicated or implemented, contributing to the resident's injury.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions experienced several falls, including a significant fall resulting in a head injury, at an LTC facility. Despite being identified as a high fall risk, the resident's care plan lacked adequate interventions, and the facility failed to report the incidents to the proper authorities. Staff interviews revealed that the care plan did not include necessary fall prevention measures, and the facility did not consider the incident reportable.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of impulsivity fell from her wheelchair outside the facility, sustaining a facial laceration and head injury. Despite being a known fall risk, she was left unsupervised, leading to the incident. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in the facility's investigation, and the facility's documentation did not align with staff statements. Additionally, the facility failed to identify a nasal fracture noted in the hospital records.
A resident returned to the facility after a hospital visit with a discharge packet that included important medical information, such as a possible nasal fracture. However, the facility failed to scan these records into the EHR, resulting in incomplete documentation. Staff interviews revealed that the records were misplaced, and the attending physician was not informed of the fracture, indicating a breakdown in communication and record-keeping processes.
A resident with liver cirrhosis and metabolic encephalopathy suffered harm due to the facility's failure to administer prescribed medications and monitor her condition. Despite physician orders for Lactulose and Rifaximin, the facility did not provide these medications as required, leading to elevated ammonia levels and a decline in the resident's health. Family concerns and requests for hospital transfer were not promptly addressed, resulting in the resident's hospitalization.
A resident with liver cirrhosis did not receive prescribed Rifaximin due to the facility's failure to complete authorization for this high-cost medication. LPNs documented administering the drug despite its unavailability, with some borrowing from another resident's discontinued supply, violating facility policy. The management was unaware of these issues until identified by surveyors.
The facility failed to serve palatable food at the appropriate temperature to residents in two halls. Several residents complained about cold food, and observations showed that lunch trays were covered with clear plastic covers instead of insulated lids and delivered via a non-insulated cart. The Chef and CDM confirmed that food temperatures were taken 30 minutes before plating, and the facility lacked insulated plate lids and a thermal transport system, leading to the deficiency.
A resident with spinal stenosis, muscle weakness, and rheumatoid arthritis did not receive the prescribed restorative care for range of motion, including splint application, as ordered. Despite the resident's compliance and desire for the splint, it was not applied on several occasions. The Director of Rehabilitation and the Restorative Nurse confirmed the oversight, and the DON acknowledged the resident's cognitive status, confirming the splint should have been applied as ordered.
A resident with COPD was found to have their oxygen concentrator set at 4 liters per minute instead of the prescribed 2 liters. Neither the resident nor their family adjusted the flow rate, indicating a lapse in staff responsibility. Both an LPN and the DON confirmed the discrepancy and acknowledged the importance of adhering to physician orders for oxygen therapy.
Failure to Provide and Document Ordered Wound and Dermatologic Treatments
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide timely, consistent, and properly documented dermatologic and wound treatments as ordered and care planned for two residents. For one resident admitted for nerve pain, the care plan identified a pressure ulcer on the buttocks and risk for skin impairment, with interventions including weekly skin checks, measurements of the wound, nutritional support, preventive skin treatments, and prompt incontinence care. Physician orders directed cleansing of bilateral lower legs with normal saline, patting dry, and wrapping with a dry dressing every evening shift, as well as cleansing an area between the buttocks with 1/4 Dakins and applying zinc oxide every shift. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed missing treatments for the lower leg wound care order on multiple dates and missing treatments for the buttocks wound care order on several shifts. Further review showed an additional physician order for wound care to bilateral lower legs every dayshift, also with missed treatments documented on the TAR. The wound care nurse stated her responsibilities were limited to residents with stage three or greater pressure wounds, while "cart nurses" were responsible for less severe wounds and weekly wound assessments. An LPN identified as a cart nurse reported that she completed wound assessments weekly and provided wound treatments when ordered, and that she always completed treatments by the end of her shift or notified the next shift or manager if unable to do so. Despite these statements, the TAR documentation reflected that ordered treatments for this resident’s wounds were not consistently completed as prescribed. For another resident admitted with a several-week history of a rash on both feet, a dermatology consultation diagnosed tinea pedis and prescribed 2% Ketoconazole cream to be applied daily to both feet until resolved. On interview, the dermatologist confirmed the daily application order and stated that failure to apply the cream as ordered could result in worsening fungal infection and secondary complications. Multiple LPNs gave conflicting information regarding the use and availability of the Ketoconazole cream: one LPN initially stated she applied the cream to the resident’s belly button, then corrected herself to say it was for the feet, and presented an unopened tube dated with the resident’s name, explaining that a previous tube had been thrown away that morning. Other LPNs stated that only one tube had been obtained from the pharmacy, that it had not been refilled, and that the tube should last approximately two and a half to three weeks if used as ordered. Family members reported the resident had not received the prescribed cream for several days after admission and expressed concern that the ordered daily treatment had been missed.
Failure to Provide Sufficient Nursing Staff and Timely Call Light Response
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to meet the needs and preferences of residents, as evidenced by prolonged call light response times and unmet care needs for multiple residents. Observations revealed that call lights remained unanswered for extended periods, with one resident waiting 25 minutes and another 20 minutes. Residents were observed calling out for assistance, and staff were not present in the hallways during these times. One resident, who had recently returned from the hospital after an amputation, was left waiting for pain medication, reporting severe pain and a significant delay since his last dose. His care plan required timely pain management, but the delay in response resulted in unmanaged pain. Another resident, dependent on staff for transfers, reported waiting approximately 30 minutes for assistance to return to bed and described routine delays due to staffing shortages. She expressed frustration with the long wait times and noted that CNAs were overworked, handling multiple responsibilities simultaneously. A third resident, with a history of respiratory issues and anxiety, also experienced delays in receiving her inhaler before scheduled therapy, leading to increased anxiety and physical symptoms. She noted that long wait times for call light responses were consistent regardless of shift or day. Staff interviews confirmed that call lights were often left unanswered due to heavy workloads and insufficient staffing, particularly during night shifts and meal service times. CNAs reported being assigned to multiple residents with high care needs, making it difficult to respond promptly to all requests. Resident Council meeting minutes and interviews with the Resident Council President highlighted ongoing concerns about staffing shortages, which had been repeatedly discussed without resolution. Facility policies required prompt call light response, and the facility assessment acknowledged the need for staffing adjustments based on resident acuity and care needs, but these standards were not met in practice.
Inaccurate MDS Medication Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the prescribed medications for a resident with multiple complex diagnoses, including multiple sclerosis, major depressive disorder, anxiety, seizures, bipolar disorder, brief psychotic disorder, and psychosis. After being readmitted from an acute care hospital, the resident was prescribed several medications, including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, antibiotics, and opioids. Review of the Medication Administration Report (MAR) confirmed that these medications were administered during the seven-day lookback period relevant to the MDS assessment. However, the MDS assessment completed for the resident did not accurately document all the medication classes received, specifically omitting antipsychotic, antidepressant, and opioid medications in Section N. The MDS Lead confirmed that the assessment should have included these drug classes and explained that the assessment was completed by a new MDS Coordinator. Corporate audits of MDS assessments were performed only on a random basis, and the facility's policy required comprehensive and accurate assessments using the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI).
Failure to Complete PASARR After Significant Change in Mental Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the completion and accuracy of a Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) following the readmission of a resident with a diagnosis of Serious Mental Illness (SMI) after a significant change in her mental condition. The resident, who had a history of multiple sclerosis, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and seizures, was readmitted from an acute care hospital and subsequently developed additional psychiatric diagnoses, including bipolar disorder, brief psychotic disorder, and psychosis. Despite these new diagnoses and significant behavioral changes, there was no evidence that a new Level I PASARR was completed after her readmission or following the onset of new psychiatric symptoms. The resident exhibited a range of severe behavioral symptoms, including hallucinations, delusions, impulsivity, aggression, resisting care, and socially inappropriate behaviors. Progress notes documented multiple incidents where the resident called 911, refused medications, food, and drink, and required emergency interventions such as the administration of psychotropic medications and involuntary psychiatric holds under state law. The medical record also showed ongoing psychiatric evaluations and medication adjustments due to persistent psychosis, agitation, and mood instability. Despite these significant changes, the PASARR documentation in the record was incomplete, with key sections left blank and no indication that a Level II evaluation was considered or initiated. Interviews with facility staff, including the LPN, Social Services Assistant, DON, and Administrator, confirmed that the PASARR was not reviewed or resubmitted after the resident's significant behavioral changes and new psychiatric diagnoses. The DON acknowledged that a new PASARR should have been completed in such circumstances, and the Administrator admitted the omission was an oversight. Additionally, the facility lacked a policy defining which staff member was responsible for updating PASARRs, and no behavioral health or behavior management policy was provided upon request.
Failure to Follow Hand Hygiene and PPE Protocol During IV Infusion
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) failed to follow proper hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols while assisting a resident with an intravenous (IV) infusion. The resident, who had a midline catheter for anemia treatment and multiple diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes, stroke, and weakness, was observed during the setup of an iron infusion. The LPN exited the resident's room wearing gloves, used scissors from the medication cart to open an IV-line package outside the room, and then reentered the room still wearing the same gloves. Inside, the LPN continued to handle the IV line and moved a trash can without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene. The LPN later confirmed that she did not remove her gloves or perform hand hygiene when leaving and reentering the resident's room, acknowledging that this was a violation of infection control protocol. The Director of Nursing (DON) stated that staff are expected to remove gloves and perform hand hygiene before exiting a resident's room. Facility records indicated that all staff receive infection control and hand hygiene education upon hire and annually.
Repeated Deficiency in Medical Record Documentation Due to Inadequate QAPI Oversight
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) policies to ensure thorough monitoring and tracking of previously identified areas of concern, specifically regarding the accuracy of medical record documentation. Despite having a QAPI program with objectives to monitor and evaluate corrective actions, the facility had repeated deficiencies at F842, related to medical record accuracy, identified during complaint surveys. The review of documentation showed that education was provided to nursing staff and audits were planned, but the same deficiency was cited again in subsequent surveys, indicating that the measures taken were not effectively monitored or sustained. During interviews, the Administrator reported limited participation in QAPI meetings since starting at the facility and was unaware of the previous deficiencies related to medical records documentation. The repeated citation of F842 demonstrated insufficient auditing and oversight by the QAPI team, as the facility did not ensure that prior improvement measures were realized and maintained, leading to ongoing non-compliance with documentation standards.
Incomplete Discharge Documentation and Notification
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to provide a complete written discharge summary and a list of medications to a resident upon discharge. The resident, who had diagnoses including nontraumatic subacute subdural hemorrhage, COPD, type 2 diabetes, repeated falls, and mobility issues, was readmitted to the facility and later discharged home. The discharge summary form in the medical record was incomplete, with several sections left blank, including skin evaluation, treatments, cognitive/psychosocial status, ADLs, sensory, dietary, rehabilitation services, and education/acknowledgement. The section for instructions after discharge was only partially completed, and the medication list, pharmacy details, and documentation of scripts provided were not addressed. There was no evidence that the discharge summary was given to the resident or signed by either the resident or staff, nor was there documentation of medication reconciliation or confirmation that medications were provided upon discharge. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of documentation and communication regarding the discharge process. The resident's sister, who was listed as the health care surrogate and POA, reported she was not notified in advance of the discharge and only received a call after the resident had left. Staff interviews indicated that the discharge was not planned according to standard procedures, and there were no progress notes or documentation of discharge planning or education provided to the resident. The Social Services Assistant and DON confirmed that the discharge summary was incomplete and not signed, and that the physician order for discharge and referral to home health were not completed until the day after the resident left. Attempts to contact the nurses and CNAs who worked during the discharge period were unsuccessful, and there was no documentation in the progress notes regarding the discharge. The facility's policy required an effective discharge process, including preparation of residents for transition and provision of necessary documentation. However, the process was not followed in this case, as evidenced by the incomplete discharge summary, lack of medication documentation, and absence of communication with the resident's designated representative. The discharge occurred without proper planning, documentation, or notification, resulting in a failure to meet regulatory requirements for resident discharge.
Incomplete Discharge Documentation and ADL Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately document the discharge plan, disposition, and Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for a resident who was readmitted with multiple diagnoses, including a subacute subdural hemorrhage, COPD, diabetes, repeated falls, and mobility issues. The resident's quarterly MDS assessment indicated an active discharge plan for return to the community, but the Discharge MDS later documented a planned discharge home with return not anticipated. The Discharge Summary form was incomplete, with several sections left blank, such as Skin Evaluation, Treatments, Cognitive/Psychosocial, ADLs/Functional Status, Sensory, Dietary, Rehabilitation Services, and Education/Acknowledgement. The Instructions After Discharge section was only partially completed, and there was no documentation of medication reconciliation, pharmacy details, or confirmation that medications or scripts were provided upon discharge. Additionally, there was no evidence that the Discharge Summary was given to or signed by the resident or staff. Review of the resident's physician orders and progress notes did not reveal any entries regarding discharge planning, education provided, or disposition of medications. Documentation of ADL tasks by CNAs was found to be incomplete, with multiple shifts showing blank entries for care provided. The DON confirmed that staff were expected to document care as close as possible to the time it was performed and acknowledged the incomplete and unsigned Discharge Summary. The facility's Medical Records policy required maintenance of records per federal requirements, which was not met in this instance.
Inadequate Supervision Leads to Resident Fall and Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and implement appropriate interventions to prevent falls for a resident with a history of repeated falls, resulting in actual harm. The resident, an elderly female with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions, was admitted to the facility with a history of impulsivity and a need for substantial assistance with mobility. Despite being identified as a high fall risk, the facility did not increase supervision or implement effective fall prevention measures after the resident experienced multiple falls. The resident had a history of falls, including four incidents in September, none of which were witnessed by staff. On one occasion, the resident was found on the floor with a head laceration after attempting to transfer herself. Despite these incidents, the facility did not implement increased supervision or specific interventions to address the resident's fall risk. The resident's care plan lacked detailed instructions for supervision, and staff were not directed to check on her within specific timeframes. The facility's failure to provide one-on-one supervision or frequent checks contributed to the resident's fall on October 5th, resulting in a facial laceration and a nasal fracture. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident was known to be impulsive and frequently attempted to move around unsupervised. Staff expressed concerns about the resident's safety and the difficulty of monitoring her while attending to other residents. Despite these concerns, the facility did not provide additional supervision or implement effective fall prevention strategies. The facility's Falling Leaf Program, intended to alert staff to high fall risk residents, was not effectively communicated or implemented, and the resident's care plan did not reflect the necessary interventions to prevent falls.
Failure to Report Possible Neglect After Resident's Falls
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report possible neglect for a resident who experienced multiple falls, including a significant fall that resulted in a head injury and a possible nondisplaced nasal bone fracture. The resident, an elderly female with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions, was admitted to the facility with a history of acute respiratory failure, sepsis, and dementia, among other diagnoses. Despite being identified as a high fall risk, the resident's care plan lacked adequate interventions to prevent falls, such as frequent checks or a fall program. The resident experienced several falls in September, none of which were witnessed by staff, and the facility did not report these incidents to the proper authorities. On one occasion, the resident was found alone on the patio, having fallen from her wheelchair, resulting in facial lacerations and altered consciousness. The facility's investigation concluded that the resident was independent with wheelchair propulsion and did not consider the incident reportable, as they believed the resident was supervised in an enclosed area. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the resident's care plan did not include the Falling Leaf Program or frequent checks, despite being a high fall risk. The facility's Director of Nursing and Nursing Home Administrator did not report the incident to the state agency, as they believed the care plan was followed and were unaware of the possible fracture. The facility's standards and guidelines define neglect as the failure to provide necessary goods and services to avoid harm, yet the facility did not report the incident as neglect.
Failure to Investigate and Supervise Leads to Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate and identify possible neglect for a resident who was severely cognitively impaired and had a history of impulsivity. The resident, who required substantial assistance for mobility and activities of daily living, was found outside alone and had fallen from her wheelchair, sustaining a facial laceration and a head injury. Despite being a known fall risk, the resident was left unsupervised, leading to the incident. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in the facility's investigation. Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) provided conflicting accounts of the supervision and checks conducted on the resident. The CNAs were expected to conduct 15-minute checks due to the resident's severe dementia and fall risk, but the resident was left alone outside, resulting in the fall. The facility's documentation and investigation did not align with the staff's statements, indicating a lack of thorough investigation and communication. The facility's investigation documents were incomplete, missing statements from key staff members involved in the incident. Additionally, the facility's review of the resident's emergency room visit failed to identify a nasal fracture, which was noted in the hospital records. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator acknowledged the discrepancies in the investigation and the lack of awareness of the resident's full medical condition post-fall.
Incomplete Medical Records for Resident Post-Hospital Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a complete and readily accessible medical record for a resident who was reviewed for administration. The resident, an elderly female, was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including acute respiratory failure, sepsis, and dementia. After a fall resulting in a head injury, she was transported to the hospital and returned with a discharge packet that included prescriptions and test results. However, the facility was unable to locate these records, which included a CT scan indicating a possible nasal fracture. Interviews with staff revealed that the hospital discharge packet was placed in a drawer at the nurse's station but was not scanned into the electronic health record (EHR) as required. The Medical Records Clerk confirmed that the records were not scanned and were missing. The Director of Nursing and other staff members acknowledged the importance of having complete records for clinical review but were unable to explain the absence of the records. The attending physician and Medical Director were not informed of the nasal fracture, highlighting a communication breakdown in the facility's process for handling hospital discharge information. The deficiency was further compounded by the lack of follow-up actions to retrieve the missing records. Despite the facility's protocol for reviewing hospital discharge records in morning meetings, the records were not available for review, and no one had requested them from the hospital. This oversight resulted in incomplete documentation and a lack of awareness among the clinical team regarding the resident's nasal fracture, which was crucial for her ongoing care and monitoring.
Failure to Administer Medications and Monitor Condition Leads to Resident Harm
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care and services according to professional standards of practice, resulting in actual harm to a resident with liver cirrhosis and metabolic encephalopathy. The resident was admitted with physician orders for Lactulose and Rifaximin to manage hyperammonia, but the facility did not administer these medications as prescribed. The resident's ammonia levels were not adequately monitored, and there was a delay in responding to elevated ammonia levels, leading to a deterioration in the resident's condition. The resident exhibited symptoms of high ammonia levels, such as nausea, confusion, and lethargy, which were not promptly addressed by the facility staff. Despite family members expressing concerns and requesting hospital transfer, the facility delayed action, resulting in the resident's condition worsening to the point of requiring hospitalization. The facility's documentation did not accurately reflect the resident's declining condition, and there were discrepancies in medication administration records. Interviews with facility staff revealed communication breakdowns and a lack of timely response to the resident's changing condition. The facility's pharmacy records indicated that only a limited supply of Rifaximin was dispensed, and there was no follow-up to ensure the resident received the necessary medication. The facility's failure to adhere to medication orders and promptly address the resident's symptoms contributed to the resident's hospitalization and harm.
Deficiency in Pharmaceutical Services and Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate pharmaceutical services for a resident with liver cirrhosis and metabolic encephalopathy, leading to a deficiency in medication administration. The resident was prescribed Lactulose and Rifaximin to manage hyperammonia, a condition associated with hepatic encephalopathy. However, the facility did not ensure the availability of Rifaximin, resulting in missed doses over several days. The medication was categorized as high-cost, requiring special authorization, which was not completed by the facility, leading to a lack of supply. Multiple Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) documented administering Rifaximin despite its unavailability, with some admitting to borrowing the medication from another resident's discontinued supply. This practice was against the facility's policy, which prohibits administering medications prescribed for one resident to another. The facility's management was unaware of the medication shortage and the inappropriate borrowing practice until it was identified by the State Survey Agency staff. The facility's investigation revealed that the pharmacy had sent multiple requests for authorization to dispense additional Rifaximin, but these were not returned by the facility. The Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed that a card of Rifaximin with 17 pills was found during an audit, which should have been returned to the pharmacy. The facility's failure to manage medication orders and returns properly, along with the inappropriate actions of the nursing staff, contributed to the deficiency in pharmaceutical services.
Deficiency in Serving Palatable Food at Appropriate Temperature
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to serve palatable food at the appropriate temperature to residents in two of its halls, specifically the 300 and 600 halls. During the recertification survey, several residents complained about receiving cold food. Observations revealed that the lunch trays for the 600 hall were covered with clear plastic covers instead of insulated dome lids, which were used for other trays. The lunch trays were delivered via a non-insulated, non-heated metal cart, and the food was found to be lukewarm and not palatable by the surveyors. The Chef and Certified Dietary Manager confirmed that the steam table temperatures were taken 30 minutes before the first meal was plated, and the food met temperature standards at that time. However, the facility was missing 25-30 insulated plate lids, and it did not use a thermal food transport system to maintain hot food temperatures during meal service. This contributed to the deficiency of serving cold food to residents, as evidenced by the complaints and observations made during the survey.
Failure to Implement Restorative Care for Resident's Range of Motion
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement the recommended restorative care for a resident, leading to a deficiency in maintaining and improving the resident's range of motion. The resident, who was admitted with spinal stenosis, muscle weakness, and rheumatoid arthritis, had an active physician's order for a restorative nursing program that included passive range of motion and splint application for his left hand. Despite the resident's compliance and desire to have the splint applied, observations and interviews revealed that the splint was not applied on several occasions, including specific dates in July. The resident reported that the splint was supposed to be applied daily but had not been applied several times over the past week and on specific days. The Director of Rehabilitation and the Restorative Nurse confirmed that the resident was to have the splint applied 4-5 days a week for 4-6 hours each time, as prescribed. However, the task report showed that the splint was not applied on multiple days, and the resident had not refused the application. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the resident's cognitive status and confirmed that the splint should have been applied as ordered. The facility's Restorative Nursing Services Standards and Guidelines emphasize promoting the resident's optimum function through a restorative nursing program, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Maintain Prescribed Oxygen Flow Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the prescribed oxygen flow rate for a resident with chronic respiratory conditions, including COPD. The resident was admitted with a physician's order for continuous oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. However, during an observation, the oxygen concentrator was found to be set at 4 liters per minute. The resident and a family member confirmed that neither had adjusted the flow rate, indicating a lapse in staff responsibility. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A and the Director of Nursing both acknowledged the discrepancy between the physician's order and the actual oxygen flow rate. They confirmed that it was the nurse's responsibility to ensure the oxygen settings matched the physician's order and to monitor these settings regularly. The facility's guidelines also emphasized the importance of adhering to physician orders for oxygen therapy. This oversight could potentially lead to respiratory distress or oxygen toxicity, particularly in a resident with COPD.
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.



