Ybor City Center For Rehabilitation And Healing
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Tampa, Florida.
- Location
- 1709 Taliaferro Ave, Tampa, Florida 33602
- CMS Provider Number
- 105891
- Inspections on file
- 21
- Latest survey
- March 3, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 3
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Ybor City Center For Rehabilitation And Healing during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of dementia repeatedly complained of left wrist and arm pain and developed swelling and an abnormal arm position over several weeks. An LPN initially notified an ARNP, who ordered a hand/wrist X‑ray and PRN Tylenol; the X‑ray was negative, and the resident’s representative was told the results were clear. A PTA later reported ongoing wrist pain to nursing, and Pain Management documented significant pain with movement and ordered routine Tylenol and topical gel, but no further nursing assessments were documented. During a routine visit, the ARNP did not document a focused assessment of the left upper extremity. The resident’s representative observed worsening swelling and severe pain with minimal touch, made multiple unsuccessful attempts to reach the DON by phone, and ultimately insisted in person that the resident be sent to the hospital. After the Medical Director noted over four weeks of arm swelling and pain and inability to perform range of motion, the resident was transferred to the emergency room, where a longstanding left shoulder dislocation was diagnosed.
A resident with severe frailty, contractures, and multiple comorbidities was admitted for respite care and assessed as high risk for pressure wounds. Despite physician recommendations for frequent repositioning, use of positioning supports, and pressure-relieving devices, these interventions were not included in the care plan or consistently provided. The resident developed multiple new pressure wounds, leading to severe infection and subsequent amputation, with staff confirming that key preventive measures were not implemented.
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program, as live roaches and flies were observed in two rooms across different halls. Staff reported frequent pest sightings but failed to consistently document them in pest sighting logbooks, and unapproved pesticide sprays were used inside the building. Personal items were exposed to chemicals, and food trays were left in resident rooms, contributing to the pest problem. The facility's pest control policy was not consistently followed, and grievances about pests remained unresolved.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and expressive aphasia was repeatedly administered medication against her will by an LPN, who held the resident's nose and mouth closed after she refused and spit out the medication multiple times. The incident was witnessed by two CNAs, and the resident verbally expressed refusal throughout the event. Facility policy and leadership confirmed that residents have the right to refuse medications, which was not honored in this case.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and dementia was subjected to physical force by an LPN during medication administration after repeatedly refusing to take her medication. The LPN held the resident's nose and mouth closed while using a syringe to administer the medication, despite the resident's verbal refusals and care plan instructions to respect refusals and use redirection. The incident was witnessed by two CNAs and later reported to the DON, with the LPN admitting to the action.
Medications, including prescription and OTC drugs, were found unsecured in unlocked cabinets, a medication refrigerator, and a treatment cart on two units. These storage areas were accessible to residents, visitors, or unlicensed staff, and staff interviews confirmed that medications should have been locked at all times according to facility policy.
The facility failed to provide adequate ADL care, including showering and incontinence care, for several residents. One resident with multiple health issues received insufficient showers and incontinence care documentation. Another resident, admitted for knee replacement rehab, lacked documentation for toilet use assistance. A third resident with cognitive impairments missed scheduled baths, with inadequate documentation of care. Staff interviews confirmed these deficiencies, indicating systemic issues in care plan execution and documentation.
The facility failed to ensure that four residents had access to the call light system. Observations showed that call lights were placed out of reach for these residents, with confirmation from an LPN and the DON. The residents had varying levels of cognitive and physical impairments, and the facility's CNA job description required prompt response to call lights, which was not met.
A resident admitted with multiple health issues did not receive timely physical and occupational therapy services due to the absence of the Director of Rehabilitation, who failed to arrange adequate coverage. The delay in therapy initiation was not communicated to the Director of Nursing or the Nursing Home Administrator, leading to a significant oversight in care.
A facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for a resident, leading to a deficiency. The resident's admission records contained incorrect language documentation, and there was incomplete documentation for ADLs and nursing progress notes. The discharge Against Medical Advice (AMA) lacked sufficient details. Interviews revealed staff were unaware of specific medications given and reasons for the AMA discharge, and the facility lacked a skilled nursing policy.
Failure to Timely Assess and Escalate Care for Persistent Upper Extremity Pain and Swelling
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely and adequately address a resident’s ongoing left upper extremity pain and swelling despite multiple reports and observable changes in condition. The resident was admitted with dementia, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 6), muscle weakness, and chronic kidney disease. On 1/7/2026, nursing documented that the resident was yelling that her hand hurt, and an ARNP was notified, who ordered an X‑ray of the hand/wrist and PRN Tylenol. The X‑ray on 1/7/2026 showed no fracture, anatomic alignment, and no soft tissue swelling. The resident’s RR was informed that the X‑ray was clear. A change in condition report was completed that same day for hand pain, but no further documented nursing assessment of the left upper extremity followed after this initial workup. On 1/9/2026, a PTA performing a quarterly therapy screen noted that the resident complained of left wrist pain and resisted giving her hand when positioned on her side. The PTA reported these concerns to the unit nurse and documented them on a communication form, but the medical record contained no subsequent nursing assessment by an LPN in response to this report. Pain Management evaluated the resident starting 1/17/2026 for left wrist pain and swelling and ordered routine Tylenol and a topical gel. The Pain Management provider later stated he did not perform range of motion because the resident was in too much pain when her wrist was moved and that he relied on nursing to report further pain, which they did not. The ARNP saw the resident again on 2/3/2026 for a routine visit and acknowledged being aware of prior pain and discomfort in the left hand and wrist, but her progress note contained no documented range of motion or focused assessment of the left hand, wrist, or shoulder; she later stated she did not know why she failed to document her assessment. During this period, the resident’s RR observed progressive changes. After being told the initial X‑ray was clear, he visited about a week later and noticed swelling of the arm and an abnormal hanging position of the hand. When he lightly touched the arm above the wrist, the resident screamed in pain. He reported this to nursing and made multiple phone calls requesting to speak with the DON about the plan of care but did not receive a return call. Eventually, he went to the facility, located the DON, and showed her the resident’s arm; when the DON and physician touched the arm, the resident again screamed in pain. The RR insisted on hospital transfer, while the DON initially suggested trying other in‑house measures. A nursing note dated 2/10/2026 documented that the RR requested emergency room evaluation for left hand/wrist edema and pain and a provider change. The Medical Director examined the resident that day, noting left arm swelling and pain present for over four weeks, the resident’s refusal to allow range of motion, and the inability to fully examine the axilla. He agreed with the RR to send the resident to the emergency room for immediate imaging. At the hospital, the resident was found to have a left shoulder dislocation that could not be reduced, and the hospital physician documented that the shoulder appeared to have been dislocated for a long time. The facility’s change‑in‑condition policy required prompt notification and documentation of changes in condition, but the facility was unable to provide an assessment change‑in‑condition policy beyond the general notification policy, and the record lacked timely, thorough nursing assessments in response to repeated reports of pain and swelling. Additional staff interviews corroborated that the resident repeatedly voiced pain without corresponding documented follow‑up assessments. A CNA recalled hearing the resident yelling in pain while passing meal trays and reported this to the nurse, after which she only heard that an X‑ray had been done. An LPN stated that about a month before the hospital transfer, a CNA reported the resident’s hand pain; she observed some swelling, notified the ARNP, and obtained the initial X‑ray and PRN Tylenol, but she did not describe any further systematic reassessment after the negative X‑ray. The DON stated that her expectation was that when another discipline reported a change in condition, the nurse should notify the physician and family and complete a change‑in‑condition note, with follow‑up documentation that the physician and family were made aware. She also stated that 2/10/2026 was the first time she personally assessed the resident and observed that the resident was in pain and unable to move her arm. The combination of repeated complaints of pain, observed swelling and abnormal arm positioning, lack of documented follow‑up assessments after therapy and Pain Management reports, and delayed escalation to hospital evaluation led to the discovery of a longstanding left shoulder dislocation. The facility’s own documentation and staff statements show that, despite multiple indicators of a persistent and worsening problem with the resident’s left upper extremity, there was no timely, comprehensive reassessment or escalation of diagnostic evaluation beyond the initial negative hand/wrist X‑ray and symptomatic treatment with Tylenol and topical gel. The ARNP’s lack of documented assessment of the left upper extremity during the 2/3/2026 visit, the absence of nursing assessments following therapy’s 1/9/2026 report of continued wrist pain, and the failure of the DON to respond to multiple calls from the RR about the resident’s condition all contributed to the delay in identifying the true source of the resident’s pain. Ultimately, the resident’s RR’s insistence on hospital transfer prompted the emergency room evaluation that revealed the left shoulder dislocation, which the hospital physician believed had been present for at least a month.
Failure to Implement Pressure Injury Prevention Measures for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
A resident with a history of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, prior CVA with right-sided contractures, right lower extremity osteomyelitis, and multiple comorbidities was admitted for respite care. Upon admission, the resident was assessed as being at high risk for pressure wounds due to severe frailty, immobility, and peripheral vascular disease. Physician recommendations included frequent turning and repositioning, use of positioning supports such as wedges and heel protectors, pressure redistributing mattress, and daily wound care. However, these recommendations were not transcribed into the resident's care plan or implemented in daily care routines. During the resident's stay, the baseline plan of care only included general interventions such as daily skin inspection, moisturizing, and encouraging nutrition, but omitted specific physician-ordered interventions for pressure injury prevention. Staff interviews and record reviews revealed that the resident was not provided with an air mattress, heel boots, or adequate offloading supports, despite these items being available in facility supply. Documentation in the Treatment Administration Record showed completion of some skin care interventions, but there was no evidence of regular turning, repositioning, or use of pressure-relieving devices as ordered. The wound care nurse and DON were unaware of the resident's deteriorating skin condition until notified by the resident's representative. The deficiency was identified when the resident's representative discovered multiple new pressure wounds on the resident's right foot, heel, and knee, which were not present prior to admission. The wounds were severe enough to require emergency transfer to the hospital, where the resident was diagnosed with severe sepsis and ultimately underwent a right foot amputation. Facility staff confirmed that the required interventions for pressure injury prevention were not consistently implemented, and the care plan did not reflect the physician's recommendations for high-risk skin care management.
Failure to Implement Effective Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement an effective pest control program, as evidenced by the presence of live roaches in two resident rooms located in separate halls. Observations revealed several roaches behind a nightstand and under an armoire/closet in one room, as well as flies and a food tray left on a resident's bed in another. Staff interviews confirmed ongoing sightings of roaches in these areas, with staff reporting that pests persist despite regular exterminator visits. Staff also indicated that they often notify maintenance verbally but do not document pest sightings in the designated logbooks, contrary to facility policy. Additionally, staff were observed using unapproved pesticide sprays inside the facility, and personal resident items were exposed to these chemicals during attempts to control pests. A review of pest sighting logbooks showed inconsistent and incomplete documentation, with exterminator invoices noting a lack of reported activity and requesting improved use of the logbooks. The facility's policy requires staff to report and document pest sightings, use only approved pest control measures, and remove residents from affected areas until control measures are implemented. However, interviews with staff and the NHA revealed that these procedures were not consistently followed, and grievances regarding pest issues remained unresolved at the time of the survey.
Failure to Honor Resident's Right to Refuse Medication
Penalty
Summary
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, vascular dementia, psychosis, and major depressive disorder was observed to have her right to refuse medication violated. The resident's care plan acknowledged her history of refusing medications and outlined interventions such as explaining procedures, allowing time for adjustment, and leaving and returning later if care was resisted. Despite these interventions, staff did not honor the resident's repeated verbal refusals of medication. On the day of the incident, the resident was being assisted by two CNAs when an LPN attempted to administer her medication. The resident spit out the medication twice when offered on a spoon. The LPN then left the room, returned with a syringe, and administered the medication by holding the resident's nose and mouth closed until she swallowed, despite the resident verbally expressing refusal. Both CNAs present witnessed the event and reported that the resident was saying, "I don't want it, I don't want it," during the process. The LPN admitted to using this method to ensure the resident took her medication, stating it was not done maliciously and referencing the resident's history of being combative when not medicated. The facility's policy and the Director of Nursing confirmed that residents have the right to refuse medications and that such rights must be honored, especially for those with cognitive impairments. The incident was also documented in a psychiatric note, which confirmed the nurse's actions and the resident's difficulty with communication due to expressive aphasia.
Resident's Rights Violated During Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, vascular dementia, psychosis, and major depressive disorder was observed to have her rights violated when a nurse used physical force to administer medication. The resident, who had a history of being resistive to care and difficulty communicating due to expressive aphasia, repeatedly refused her medication by spitting it out. Despite this, the nurse attempted to administer the medication multiple times, ultimately resorting to holding the resident's nose and mouth closed while using a syringe to force the medication into her mouth. Multiple staff members witnessed the incident and reported that the resident verbally expressed her refusal by saying, "I don't want it, I don't want it." The nurse admitted to the action, stating that she did not act maliciously and referenced using a similar method with her own children. The incident was documented in a psychiatric note, which confirmed the nurse's admission and the resident's ongoing difficulty with communication and resistance to care. The facility's policy prohibits all forms of abuse, including physical abuse, and requires immediate reporting of any alleged violations. The actions taken by the nurse were inconsistent with the resident's care plan, which emphasized respecting refusals, using redirection, and allowing time for the resident to adjust. The incident was not immediately reported by the witnessing CNAs, but was later brought to the attention of the Director of Nursing, who confirmed that the resident's right to refuse medication should have been honored.
Failure to Secure Medication Storage Areas
Penalty
Summary
Medications, including prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, were observed to be improperly stored and unsecured on two units within the facility. On the 400-unit, the nurses' station door was left open with no staff present, and both the medication refrigerator and cabinets containing OTC medications were unlocked and accessible. These conditions persisted during multiple observations throughout the day, with photographic evidence obtained. On the 300-unit, a treatment cart containing prescription medications and wound care supplies was left unlocked and unattended in a resident common area. Staff interviews confirmed that the medication storage areas should have been locked at all times and accessible only to authorized personnel. An LPN acknowledged that the refrigerator and cabinet should have been secured but had not yet been locked. The DON stated that it was her expectation that all medication storage areas, including treatment and medication carts, remain locked when not in use. Facility policy also requires all medications, except for emergency drug kits, to be stored in locked areas accessible only to authorized staff.
Deficiencies in ADL Care and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) care, specifically in showering and incontinence care, for several residents. Resident #2, who had multiple health issues including acute respiratory failure, COPD, and muscle weakness, required assistance with toileting and showering. Despite care plans indicating the need for regular showers and incontinence checks, documentation showed that Resident #2 received only two showers in October 2024 and had significant gaps in incontinence care documentation. Interviews with staff confirmed the lack of documentation and adherence to the care plan. Resident #3, admitted for rehabilitation after a knee replacement, also experienced deficiencies in care. The resident required assistance with transfers and toilet use, but documentation for bladder and bowel elimination was missing for several shifts. Interviews revealed that staff failed to document the resident's needs and care provided, despite the resident's requirement for assistance due to mobility issues. Resident #4, who had cognitive impairments and required total assistance with ADLs, was not bathed according to the facility's schedule. Documentation showed missed shower opportunities and inadequate recording of bathing activities. Staff interviews confirmed the lack of adherence to the bathing schedule and the absence of documentation for refusals or alternative care provided. These deficiencies highlight a systemic issue in the facility's documentation and execution of care plans for residents requiring assistance with daily living activities.
Inaccessible Call Lights for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that four residents had access to the call light system, as observed during a survey. Resident #5 was found lying in bed with the call light pull string placed on a bedside dresser, out of reach, and obscured by boxes. Resident #6's call light was positioned behind and above the resident, making it inaccessible. Staff B, an LPN, confirmed that both residents could not reach their call lights. Resident #5 had a BIMS score indicating intact cognition, while Resident #6 had severe cognitive impairment. Further observations revealed that Resident #9's call light was on the floor, wrapped around the bed control cord, and Resident #10's call light was on a bedside dresser, out of reach. The Director of Nursing confirmed the inaccessibility of the call lights for these residents. Resident #9 had intact cognition, while Resident #10 was blind with intact cognition. The facility's job description for CNAs included the responsibility to ensure call lights are promptly answered, highlighting a failure in meeting this standard.
Failure to Provide Timely Therapy Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely therapy services for a resident, identified as Resident #2, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, COPD, and muscle weakness. The resident required both physical and occupational therapy five times a week as per physician orders. However, there was a delay in initiating these therapy services, with physical therapy starting on 10/12/2024 and occupational therapy on 10/14/2024, despite the resident being admitted on 10/7/2024. The delay in therapy services was attributed to the absence of the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR), who was out ill and did not arrange for adequate coverage. The DOR admitted that the resident might have been missed and acknowledged that under Medicare guidelines, evaluations should occur within 48 hours. The DOR also mentioned that a therapist was available on 10/12/2024, but the resident was not on the schedule. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) were also unaware of the lapse in therapy services. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of communication and planning to ensure continuity of care during the DOR's absence. The facility's policy required physician orders to be validated by therapists before initiating therapy services, but this process was not effectively managed. The failure to provide timely therapy services was a significant oversight, as the resident was at risk for various complications without the necessary therapeutic interventions.
Deficiency in Medical Record Maintenance and Communication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain accurate and complete medical records for a resident, leading to a deficiency in safeguarding resident-identifiable information. The resident was admitted following a hospital stay with several diagnoses, including an artificial knee joint and anxiety disorder. However, discrepancies were found in the resident's admission records, such as incorrect language documentation, which stated the resident spoke Spanish instead of English. Additionally, the continence evaluation was incomplete, and there was a lack of documentation for the resident's Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) during specific shifts. Furthermore, there were no nursing progress notes for a particular day, and the documentation regarding the resident's discharge Against Medical Advice (AMA) was insufficient, lacking details about communication with the physician or facility administration. Interviews with facility staff revealed further issues. The Director of Nursing (DON) admitted to working a shift without recalling specific medications given to the resident and was unaware of the reasons behind the resident's AMA discharge. The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Social Services Director (SSD) confirmed the absence of necessary documentation and noted the transition of the Risk Manager position during the period in question. The facility lacked a skilled nursing policy, which contributed to the incomplete documentation and communication failures regarding the resident's care and discharge.
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.



