Hartford Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Detroit, Michigan.
- Location
- 6700 W Outer Dr, Detroit, Michigan 48235
- CMS Provider Number
- 235177
- Inspections on file
- 23
- Latest survey
- January 29, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 24
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Hartford Nursing & Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Staff failed to provide timely bedside water to multiple cognitively intact and cognitively impaired residents, some with significant comorbidities such as CVA, CHF, COPD, diabetes, and severe protein-calorie malnutrition. During a daytime survey window, several residents were observed without water at bedside; some reported not receiving fresh water since the prior night or since breakfast and described using alternative containers or having cups removed and not replaced. Assigned CNAs acknowledged that they had not yet passed water during their shifts, despite the DON’s expectation that fresh water be passed by mid-morning and before the end of the shift, and despite a facility policy requiring that each resident be provided bedside water.
Surveyors found that meals were not maintained at palatable temperatures when a dietary manager acknowledged that heated bases were available but not used, and plates were observed at 75–85°F without a plate warmer in operation. A test tray placed early on a meal cart with about 25 trays and delivered to a unit was later measured, showing a pot pie at 127.6°F and mixed vegetables at 104°F, despite the manager’s stated expectation that hot foods should reach residents at 135°F or higher. This resulted in decreased food consumption and potential nutritional decline for affected residents.
A deficiency was cited when a facility area was not kept free from accident hazards and adequate supervision was not provided to prevent accidents. The environment did not meet safety standards, and there was a lack of appropriate measures and oversight to protect residents from potential harm.
A resident with paralysis and a high fall risk was not provided the required two-person assist during bed repositioning, as specified in their care plan and Kardex. A CNA attempted to change the resident's brief alone, resulting in the resident falling from the bed and sustaining a right hip fracture that required surgical repair. The CNA was unaware of the two-person assist requirement and did not consult the Kardex prior to care, leading to inadequate supervision and a serious injury.
The facility failed to clean and sanitize resident equipment for 14 residents on the third floor. A shower chair with dried feces and a soiled sit-to-stand machine were observed. An LPN indicated the midnight shift was responsible for cleaning, and the NHA confirmed the equipment should be cleaned after each use. The facility's policy emphasized the importance of cleaning to prevent infection transmission.
A resident's recliner was found unclean on multiple occasions, with dried food, dust, and stains, despite the facility's policy on cleaning multi-use equipment. The resident, with a history of chronic conditions and requiring assistance for daily living, was observed in the dirty recliner. The ADON noted that cleaning was assigned to aides, but this was not documented on assignment sheets.
A facility failed to complete and transmit a resident's MDS assessments within the required timeframe. The Admission MDS assessment was completed late, and the discharge assessment was not completed or submitted, resulting in inaccurate tracking of assessments. The MDS Coordinator was uncertain why the discharge assessment was missed.
A resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis was observed with long fingernails and an unkempt beard, indicating a failure in timely ADL care. Despite receiving a bed bath, the resident's grooming needs were unmet, and no refusals of care were documented. The facility's policy requires daily grooming assistance, which was not provided as expected.
A resident with limited ROM was not included in the restorative program after therapy discharge, despite documentation indicating the need. The resident, with an acquired absence of both legs below the knee, was not receiving necessary exercises. Staff interviews revealed a lack of referral from physical therapy, contrary to facility policy.
A resident's CPAP equipment was not stored in a sanitary manner, with the mouthpiece left uncovered on a nightstand and occasionally falling on the floor. The resident, who has obstructive sleep apnea, reported that the facility did not provide a cover for the mouthpiece, and cleaning was inconsistent. The facility's policy required the mask to be stored in a clean bag, but this was not followed, leading to potential respiratory infection risks.
A resident in the facility for two months, who was cognitively intact and required assistance with daily activities, did not receive necessary dental care despite having only two teeth and expressing difficulty chewing. The resident requested to have the teeth pulled to obtain dentures, but the facility failed to coordinate or provide dental services, resulting in unmet oral health needs. Interviews with the DON and SSD revealed a lack of awareness and documentation regarding the resident's dental needs, despite a physician's order and care plan noting dental concerns.
Failure to Provide Timely Bedside Water to Multiple Residents
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide timely bedside water to multiple residents, as required to maintain adequate hydration. During the initial screening on 1/27/2026 between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., several residents were observed without water in their rooms or at bedside, despite the facility’s oral hydration policy stating that each resident will be provided bedside water. One resident (R94), who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14/15 and had diagnoses including hemiplegia/hemiparesis after cerebral infarction and hypertension, reported that no fresh water had been passed since about 9:00 p.m. on the midnight shift and showed a small iced tea bottle they were using to obtain water from the sink. Another cognitively intact resident (R76), with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, hypertension, and venous insufficiency, was observed in bed with an empty Styrofoam cup out of reach and stated that no cold water had been passed since the midnight shift. A third resident (R18), who had severe protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia, anemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cerebral infarction and was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 3/15, stated that no one had brought any fresh water at all that day and expressed a desire for cold water. Another resident (R156), cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15/15 and diagnoses including congestive heart failure, chronic respiratory failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and COPD, reported that staff had picked up their water cup around breakfast time and had not brought any fresh water back. A further resident (R62), cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15/15 and diagnoses including ETOH use, left femur fracture, hypertension, history of falls, carotid artery disease, and COPD, was observed at 1:30 p.m. with no water cup in the room or at bedside and declined interview. Review of staffing assignments showed that CNA T was assigned to several of the affected residents (R62, R76, and R18) on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. At 3:00 p.m., CNA T acknowledged that water had not been passed and stated they planned to pass water later, adding that residents should have had water at the start of the shift. Another CNA (CNA U), assigned to other affected residents (R156 and R94) and working an additional four hours, stated at 4:16 p.m. that they had been very busy and were only then passing water, acknowledging that residents should have received fresh water earlier. The DON later confirmed that staff are expected to pass fresh water multiple times on 12-hour shifts and that on 8-hour shifts fresh water should be passed before 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., usually by 10:00 a.m., and that fresh water should be passed before 3:00 p.m. regardless, which had not occurred for these residents on the day in question.
Failure to Maintain Palatable and Safe Food Temperatures During Meal Service
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure meals were served at palatable temperatures, as identified in two intakes related to concerns that food served to residents was not at palatable temperatures. During an interview, the Dietary Manager stated the facility has heated bases but confirmed they were not in use for the observed meal, and surveyors observed plates measuring between 75°F and 85°F with no plate warmer in use. The Dietary Manager reported that hot food on the steam table should be at least 150°F so residents receive food at 135°F or higher. A regular test tray was plated and placed as one of the first meals on the C unit cart, which then traveled to the unit with approximately 25 meal trays and was fully delivered before the test tray was returned to the conference room. When the test tray was checked with a rapid-read thermometer, the pot pie measured 127.6°F and the mixed vegetables measured 104°F, demonstrating that hot foods were not maintained at the expected temperatures, resulting in decreased food consumption and potential nutritional decline for the residents involved. No additional resident-specific medical histories or conditions were documented in the report beyond the noted decreased food consumption and potential nutritional decline associated with the improperly maintained food temperatures.
Failure to Maintain Safe Environment and Supervision
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified due to the failure to ensure that a specific area within the facility was free from accident hazards and that adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents. The report notes that the environment did not meet safety standards, which could contribute to accidents occurring. The deficiency centers on the lack of appropriate measures to identify and eliminate hazards, as well as insufficient oversight to safeguard residents from potential harm.
Failure to Provide Required Two-Person Assist Results in Resident Fall and Hip Fracture
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with a history of stroke, paralysis from the waist down, and multiple comorbidities, including chronic foot ulcer and neuropathy, was not provided the required two-person assistance during bed mobility. The resident's care plan and Kardex both specified that extensive to maximum assistance with two staff members was necessary for repositioning and turning in bed due to the resident's high fall risk and functional deficits. Despite these documented requirements, a single Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) attempted to change the resident's brief and reposition them alone. During the care event, the CNA rolled the resident onto their side and, after moving to the other side of the bed, the resident lost balance and fell to the floor. The CNA admitted to taking their hands off the resident and not being aware of the two-person assist requirement, stating they had previously cared for the resident alone without incident. The CNA also revealed a lack of knowledge about the Kardex and its role in communicating care needs, relying instead on verbal shift reports for information. As a result of the fall, the resident sustained an acute intertrochanteric fracture of the right femur, which required surgical repair. The resident experienced significant pain, was unable to participate in activities, and expressed emotional distress over the loss of independence and missed activities. The incident was corroborated by interviews, medical records, and hospital documentation, all confirming that the resident was left without adequate supervision and assistance, directly leading to the accident and injury.
Failure to Clean and Sanitize Resident Equipment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that resident equipment was cleaned and sanitized properly for 14 residents on the third floor. During an observation on the morning of November 22, 2024, a shower chair was found in the hallway with visible dried feces. Additionally, a sit-to-stand machine, used for positioning residents, was noted to be soiled with dirt and food particles. These findings indicate a lack of adherence to proper cleaning protocols for resident equipment. When questioned, an LPN stated that the midnight shift was responsible for cleaning the equipment and that it should be cleaned after each use to prevent cross-contamination. The Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the facility was responsible for cleaning the equipment and reiterated that it should be cleaned after each use and during the midnight shift. A review of the facility's policy on cleaning and disinfecting multi-use resident equipment highlighted the importance of cleaning and disinfection to prevent the transmission of infectious pathogens, emphasizing that noncritical items should be cleaned when visibly soiled and on a regular schedule.
Failure to Maintain Cleanliness of Resident's Recliner
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the cleanliness of a geriatric recliner used by a resident, compromising the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. On two separate occasions, the resident was observed sitting in a recliner that was visibly dirty, with dried food, dust, candy wrappers, and stains present. The recliner had dried brownish drip stains on the left side and a dried white substance on the top. Despite the facility's policy on cleaning and disinfecting multi-use resident equipment, the recliner remained unclean over a period of days. The resident involved had a medical history that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, glaucoma, and hallucinations. The resident required dependent assistance for activities of daily living. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) acknowledged that the cleaning of chairs was supposed to be done by aides on the midnight shift and as needed, but the assignment sheets reviewed did not reflect this task. This oversight in maintaining cleanliness contributed to the deficiency noted by the surveyors.
Failure to Complete and Transmit MDS Assessments Timely
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for a resident, identified as R54, was completed and transmitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the required timeframe. Specifically, the Admission MDS assessment for R54 had an assessment reference date (ARD) of July 1, 2024, and was completed on July 10, 2024. However, it was not locked and accepted until July 23, 2024, which was beyond the 14-day requirement after completion. Additionally, R54 was discharged from the facility on July 19, 2024, but the discharge MDS assessment was neither completed nor submitted, resulting in the assessment being overdue by 112 days as of the review date. During an interview, the MDS Coordinator, identified as Nurse D, acknowledged that the discharge assessment for R54 was not completed and expressed uncertainty about why it was missed. The review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) guidelines, as documented in October 2024, highlighted the responsibilities of nursing homes to complete assessments in accordance with 42 CFR 483.20. These requirements apply to all residents in Medicare and/or Medicaid certified long-term care facilities, regardless of various factors such as age, diagnosis, or payment source. The failure to complete and transmit the MDS assessments as required led to inaccurate tracking of resident assessments, including admission, quarterly, and discharge assessments.
Failure to Provide Timely ADL Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) care, specifically nail and beard care, for a resident identified as R28. Observations on two consecutive days revealed that R28 had long fingernails with debris and an unkempt beard. R28, who has a pertinent diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke, expressed a need for a shave and nail trimming. The resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated intact cognition and a requirement for substantial assistance with personal hygiene. Despite receiving a bed bath/shower the previous evening, R28's grooming needs were not addressed. The care plan for R28, dated earlier in the month, indicated a need for limited assistance with personal hygiene. However, there were no documented refusals of ADL care in the electronic health record, and the resident was observed to agree to grooming when offered by an LPN. The facility's policy on routine resident care mandates assistance with grooming and personal hygiene, including nail care and shaving, as part of daily care. The Director of Nursing confirmed that ADLs should be performed as needed, yet the observations and interviews indicated a lapse in adhering to these expectations.
Failure to Include Resident in Restorative Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to include a resident with limited range of motion (ROM) in the restorative program, as required to maintain or improve their mobility. The resident, who had an acquired absence of both legs below the knee, was not receiving therapy or exercises after the completion of their initial therapy sessions. Despite having intact cognition and requiring substantial assistance for transfers, the resident's electronic health record (EHR) did not contain a therapy to restorative form for physical therapy discharge, nor were there any orders, care plans, or Kardex entries for a restorative ROM program. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident should have been on restorative nursing services based on the documentation in the EHR. However, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) responsible for restorative services stated that no referral was received from physical therapy. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the expectation was for restorative services to be assessed per therapy recommendations. The facility's policy on restorative nursing emphasized the importance of an interdisciplinary process, including referrals from skilled therapy services, which was not followed in this case.
Improper Storage of CPAP Equipment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that respiratory care equipment was stored in a sanitary manner for a resident who required the use of a CPAP machine for obstructive sleep apnea. The resident, who was alert and oriented, was observed with the CPAP mouthpiece and tubing loosely wrapped around the machine, with the mouthpiece resting uncovered on the nightstand. The resident reported that previous facilities provided a cover for the mouthpiece to prevent it from getting dirty, but this was not the case at the current facility. The resident also mentioned that the mouthpiece had fallen on the floor, and they would pick it up and place it back on the table, with cleaning sometimes occurring in the morning but not before use at night. The clinical record indicated that the resident was readmitted with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The physician's orders specified that the CPAP tubing and mask should be cleaned with soap and water once a week, but the medication treatment record only documented cleaning on one occasion. The facility's policy required the mask to be stored in a clean bag when not in use, but the Unit Manager was unaware that the resident did not have the proper covering. This lack of proper storage and cleaning practices resulted in the potential for respiratory infections.
Failure to Provide Routine Dental Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide routine dental services to a resident, identified as R63, who had been in the facility for about two months. R63, who was cognitively intact and required assistance with activities of daily living, expressed difficulty chewing due to having only two remaining teeth and requested to have them pulled to obtain dentures. Despite a physician's order for a dental evaluation and a care plan noting dental concerns, the resident did not receive the necessary dental care. The resident's medical record indicated a need for dental services, but the facility did not coordinate or provide these services, resulting in unmet oral health needs and discomfort. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Social Service Director (SSD) revealed a lack of awareness regarding the resident's need for dental care. The DON acknowledged the existence of a physician's order for a dental evaluation but considered it a standard order, not necessarily indicating immediate need. The SSD admitted that dental services were not offered during the initial assessment and claimed the resident did not want to see a dentist, although there was no documentation to support this claim. The facility's policy required providing routine and emergency dental services, but this was not adhered to in the case of R63.
Latest citations in Michigan
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions, including vascular dementia and thoracic spine fractures, had a care plan and Kardex requiring two-person assist for bed mobility and toileting at bed level. A CNA, who acknowledged knowing the resident was a two-person assist but did not seek help because staff were busy and was unfamiliar with the facility’s fall-prevention protocol, provided incontinence care and changed bed linens alone. During this one-person care, the resident rolled out of bed, sustained a head laceration, was found on the floor in a pool of blood, and required hospital evaluation and suturing before returning to the facility, where the resident was later observed crying and pointing to the sutured forehead.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, a history of elopement, and daily wandering exited the building in the early morning while wearing an electronic elopement-prevention device. When the front door and device alarms sounded, the DON shut off the main alarm without an immediate overhead headcount or clear communication about which door had alarmed, and staff, affected by frequent door alarms from smokers, were confused about whether it was an elopement. While staff searched inside and around the building, the resident walked a significant distance along a main road without a coat in freezing weather before being located by nursing staff. Three additional residents with severe cognitive impairment and wandering behaviors were found to be wearing electronic devices, but for some there were no physician orders, no documented device checks, missing inclusion on the elopement risk list, and care plans that did not include the devices as interventions, demonstrating inconsistent elopement risk identification and planning.
A resident with a known history of attempting to leave the facility exited through the front door in the early morning, triggering both the door alarm and an elopement prevention device. The DON shut off the main alarm, looked outside but did not immediately exit the front door or make an overhead announcement, leading to confusion among staff about which door had alarmed and whether anyone was missing. CNAs searched the grounds, and an LPN used a car to search nearby streets, eventually locating the resident walking with a walker near a gas station, cold and without a coat, in freezing temperatures along a main highway. An RN then assisted in persuading the resident to return, with the total time away exceeding 25 minutes. The incident, which posed a risk to the resident’s health and safety, was not reported to the State Agency as required by the facility’s abuse, neglect, and exploitation reporting policy.
A resident at risk for elopement exited the facility through a front door in the early morning, triggering both the door alarm and an elopement device alarm. The DON shut off the main alarm and looked outside but did not immediately exit the front door, while CNAs and an LPN searched the building and surrounding areas. The resident, wearing everyday clothes and no coat in freezing weather, was eventually located by an LPN walking with a walker near a gas station on a busy road, and a second nurse assisted in persuading the resident to return. The facility’s investigation failed to preserve or document key information from available video footage, did not record specific times, route, distance traveled, or weather conditions, and included incomplete and delayed risk management documentation with limited witness statements, contrary to facility policy requiring prompt incident reporting and medical record entries after an elopement event.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, mobility limitations, and a history of falls was observed in bed with the call light wrapped around the television and out of reach, despite a care plan requiring the call light to be kept within reach. Another cognitively intact resident with neuromuscular impairment, care planned for weighted utensils and a plate guard, received a meal tray containing only a weighted fork and no weighted knife or spoon, causing visible difficulty and frustration while attempting to cut and eat a chicken breast. Resident Council minutes from two consecutive months documented repeated complaints from residents that call lights were not accessible and were not answered in a timely manner.
A resident with stroke-related hemiparesis, abnormal gait, dementia, CKD, and hypertension, care planned as at risk for falls, experienced an unwitnessed fall while attempting to use the bathroom, having taken an IV pole instead of a walker and tripping over IV tubing. A CNA found the resident on the bathroom floor, sitting upright and holding assist bars, and, seeing no obvious injury, helped the resident back to bed before notifying an LPN. The LPN’s documentation and post-fall evaluation reflected assessment only after the resident was already in bed, with no injuries identified. Facility leadership and written fall management guidelines state that after a fall, the nurse must be notified immediately and must evaluate the resident for possible head, neck, spine, and extremity injuries prior to moving them, which did not occur in this case.
A resident with hemiplegia, dementia, and moderate cognitive impairment had a documented ADL self-care deficit and a care plan specifying assisted evening showers on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays per his and his family’s request. Facility records, including the Kardex and nursing notes, reflected this schedule, but shower documentation for one month showed three missed, undocumented showers out of 13 scheduled. A family member reported that showers were not always completed as scheduled, and the DON confirmed the three-times-weekly schedule but could not provide documentation that showers were offered or completed on the missing dates, contrary to the facility’s ADL policy requiring provision and documentation of hygiene care.
Surveyors found that staff failed to maintain accurate and complete treatment documentation for multiple residents, including missing TAR entries for ordered compression stockings, skin care, wound care, and monitoring, inconsistent and unexplained use of an incentive spirometer order with no supporting progress notes, and conflicting records about nebulized Ipratropium-Albuterol treatments that residents and the NP reported were never given due to lack of equipment. Nurses sometimes charted treatments as completed or used the "07-Other/See Progress Notes" code without any corresponding notes, while leadership acknowledged there was no systematic oversight of treatment documentation, contrary to the facility’s own documentation policy requiring factual, complete, and non-false entries.
A resident with dementia, heart disease, and multiple pressure and skin wounds had a complex care plan with numerous updates for conditions such as cognitive fluctuation, UTI, anemia, hypothyroidism, constipation risk, and nutritional risk, but the POA reported never receiving a copy of the care plan. Care conference documentation left the “Plan of Care” section blank, and although the SW stated it was standard to offer and provide the plan, there was no evidence this occurred. The resident’s representatives and POA repeatedly reported poor communication, including not being informed when PT and OT services ended and not receiving timely responses to messages and emails about care concerns. Wound orders and conditions changed over time, including new wounds and merging buttock wounds, yet the record did not show that the POA was notified of these significant changes, contrary to facility policy requiring notification of the resident and representative for major changes in condition and treatment.
Two residents did not receive appropriate treatment and care according to orders and needs. A resident with DM, peripheral vascular disease, prior toe amputation, and osteomyelitis had an in-house–acquired right second toe ulcer that was documented and treated, but dark eschar on the right third toe seen in a wound photo and described by a PA as eschar on the second and third toes was not added to the wound tracking spreadsheet or clearly documented as a separate wound before the resident was later hospitalized and underwent amputation of the second and third toes. Nursing notes and NP documentation focused on the second toe only, and staff interviews showed uncertainty about whether the entire foot was consistently assessed during dressing changes. Another resident with dementia and severe cognitive impairment had increasing difficulty hearing; the guardian reported requesting that the resident’s hearing be checked due to suspected earwax buildup, but no assessment or intervention was documented.
Failure to Provide Required Two-Person Assist During Bed Mobility Resulting in Fall
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow a resident’s care plan requiring two-person assistance for bed mobility and toileting at bed level, resulting in a fall from bed. The resident had multiple diagnoses, including cerebral infarction, vascular dementia, thoracic spine wedge compression fractures (T11–T12), major depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder, and had a BIMS score of 2/15 indicating severely impaired cognition. The resident’s care plan, in place prior to the incident, specified that two staff members were required to assist with bed mobility and toileting at bed level. On the day of the incident, a CNA provided incontinence care and changed bed linens for the resident without obtaining the required second staff member, despite acknowledging awareness that the resident was a two-person assist and having reviewed the Kardex that specified two-person assistance for bed mobility. The CNA reported not seeking assistance because other staff were busy and also stated unfamiliarity with the facility’s “Happy Feet” fall prevention protocol. During this one-person care, the resident rolled out of bed and fell to the floor. Following the fall, a nurse responded to the room and found the resident on the floor with a pool of blood and an abrasion on the right side of the forehead, later documented as a facial laceration requiring five sutures at the hospital. The resident was transported to the hospital for evaluation, including imaging and other diagnostic tests, and returned the same day with instructions for suture care and pain relief. Later observation documented the resident lying in bed, nonverbal, crying, and pointing to the forehead where the stitches were present. Interviews with the Administrator and DON confirmed that the fall was attributed to the CNA not following the care plan and not waiting for another staff member to assist with ADL care and bed mobility.
Failure to Prevent Elopement and Inadequate Elopement/Wandering Safeguards
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to prevent an elopement and to ensure adequate elopement and unsafe wandering safeguards for multiple residents identified as at risk. One resident with severe cognitive impairment, a history of elopement, and documented daily wandering exited the building in the early morning hours while wearing an electronic elopement-prevention device. The front door alarm and the device alarm sounded, but the DON shut off the main alarm and did not immediately initiate an overhead headcount or clearly communicate which door had alarmed. Staff described confusion about whether the alarm was due to smokers using the door or an elopement, and some staff reported they could not hear the device alarm from certain halls. While staff searched rooms and areas inside the building and around the exterior, the resident walked away from the facility in freezing temperatures without a coat. Interviews and record review showed that the resident who eloped had multiple psychiatric and cognitive diagnoses, a BIMS score indicating severely impaired cognition, and an MDS indicating daily wandering. The resident’s care plan identified her as an elopement risk with exit-seeking behavior, a history of elopement, and triggers such as frustration, desire to leave, and difficulty with change. On the same night as the elopement, documentation showed the resident was aggressive, frustrated, and disoriented after a room change, which matched her identified triggers. Despite these known risks and triggers, when the alarm sounded early that morning, staff did not immediately verify at the front door whether the resident had exited, did not keep the elopement alarm active until she was found, and relied on delayed, word-of-mouth communication to begin a headcount and search. Staff ultimately located the resident approximately a half mile away on a main road, walking with a walker and no coat, and reported that she was cold and initially refused to return. The deficiency also includes failures in elopement risk identification and care planning for three additional residents who wore electronic elopement-prevention devices. One resident with severely impaired cognition and documented wandering behavior was observed wearing a device, which triggered an alarm when she attempted to go through a service hallway door toward an outside exit. However, there was no physician order for the device, no order to check its function, and her care plan for wandering did not include the use of the device. Another resident with severely impaired cognition and daily wandering had a physician order to check the device’s function and was listed on the facility’s elopement risk list, but her care plan did not include the device as an intervention. A third resident with severely impaired cognition and daily intrusive wandering also wore a device and had an order to check its function, yet her care plan did not include the device, and she was not listed on the elopement risk list. The staff member responsible for tracking elopement risk residents presented a handwritten list that was supposed to include all residents with devices, but at least two residents wearing devices were not on that list, demonstrating inconsistent identification and care planning for elopement risk. Facility policy on Unsafe Wandering and Elopement Prevention stated that every effort would be made to prevent unsafe wandering and elopement while maintaining the least restrictive environment, and that nursing personnel must report and investigate all reports of missing residents. Staff interviews revealed frequent door and alarm use by smokers, contributing to what staff described as “alarm fatigue” and confusion when alarms sounded. In the elopement incident, staff reported that the elopement protocol required leaving the device alarm on and calling an overhead headcount, but this did not occur as required. The combination of alarm fatigue, failure to follow elopement procedures, incomplete or missing physician orders and care plan interventions for residents wearing devices, and inconsistent maintenance of the elopement risk list led to the cited deficiency for failure to ensure the environment was free from accident hazards and that adequate supervision and elopement prevention measures were in place.
Failure to Report Resident Elopement in Freezing Conditions
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to report an elopement incident to the State Agency (SA) as required by its abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy. A resident identified as R10, who was known by staff to have previously attempted to leave the facility and was considered an elopement risk, exited the building through the front door in the early morning hours. When R10 left, both the front door alarm and the elopement prevention device alarm were activated. The DON was in the building, went to the front door, shut off the main alarm, and realized the elopement prevention device was sounding. The DON looked outside but did not exit through the front door, and there was no immediate overhead announcement identifying which door had alarmed or whether a resident was missing, which created confusion among staff. Following the alarm, CNAs went outside to look in the parking lot and surrounding areas around the building, and another CNA spoke with the DON at the door. A head count was then called, and an LPN determined that R10 could not be found in the building. The LPN got into her car and drove to the main street to search for the resident. During this time, the service drive was described as snowed in with no footprints in the snow, and staff did not initially know which door had alarmed. The LPN eventually located R10 walking near a gas station but reported that the resident refused to get into the car, prompting an RN to drive to the location to assist. The RN later stated that it took about 20 minutes to find R10 and additional time to pick her up and convince her to get into the car. The facility’s investigation confirmed that R10 left the building at approximately 5:15 AM and was gone for over 25 minutes, walking with a walker outdoors. Historical weather data reviewed by the surveyor showed temperatures between 22 and 29 degrees Fahrenheit on the day of the incident, and the resident was described as cold and freezing, without a coat, while walking on a sidewalk next to the main highway. The surveyor determined that this situation represented a risk to the resident’s health and safety, and it was further found that the elopement incident was not reported to the SA, despite the facility’s policy requiring reporting of such events within specified timeframes.
Failure to Thoroughly and Timely Investigate Resident Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to conduct a complete, thorough, and timely investigation of an elopement involving one resident. A complaint to the State Agency alleged that the resident left the facility in the early morning hours in freezing temperatures, walking several blocks on a highway with a walker and without a jacket, and that staff discovered the resident missing only after some time had passed. The complaint further alleged that the DON shut off the main door alarm that alerts staff when residents wearing an elopement prevention device leave the facility, did not immediately initiate a headcount, and returned to other tasks, while another nurse later determined that an elopement‑risk resident was not in the building and initiated a search. The resident was reportedly found 15–20 minutes later about a half mile away on a busy road and returned to the facility uninjured. The facility’s written investigation, presented nearly four weeks after the event, described that the resident exited the front door, triggering both the door alarm and the elopement device alarm. The DON responded to the alarm, shut off the main alarm, and looked outside but did not go out the front door, while CNAs searched the parking lot and surrounding areas and another CNA spoke with the DON. A headcount was called, and an LPN reported she could not find the resident, then drove her car to the main street, located the resident walking near a gas station, and reported that the resident initially refused to get into the car. A second nurse drove to the location, and together they persuaded the resident to return. The facility’s own summary of concerns noted that the resident was able to leave the building, that the DON did not go out the front door, that other staff exited through the back door, and that no one went immediately out the front door, and also noted that the resident had been triggered earlier and had previously attempted to leave the facility. The investigation was incomplete and inaccurate in multiple respects. The facility had camera footage of the exit door used by the resident, but the NHA reported that the footage was not saved because they did not know how to preserve it, and it was taped over. The Maintenance Director stated he viewed the video and could see the resident exit in everyday clothes and later re‑enter, but he did not record the times, and those times were not included in the investigation. The investigation did not document the time the resident exited, who went out the door, when the resident was found, or when she re‑entered the building. It did not address the route taken, did not measure the distance traveled, and did not document the weather conditions, even though historical data showed temperatures between 22–29°F and there was snow that might have shown the resident’s path. The risk management report, authored by the DON, contained an internal inconsistency in timing (stated as written before the alarm response time), included written witness statements from only a limited number of involved staff, omitted the second nurse who assisted in returning the resident, and the DON’s witness statement was linked to a late entry progress note written over two weeks after the event. A regional RN stated she would have expected the risk management report and documentation to be completed as part of the investigation as soon as possible and certainly sooner than two weeks later, and the facility’s own elopement policy required completion and filing of an incident report and appropriate medical record entries upon the resident’s return, which was not timely or thoroughly done in this case.
Failure to Ensure Accessible Call Lights and Consistent Provision of Adaptive Eating Devices
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failure to honor residents' rights to dignity, self-determination, communication, and exercise of rights by not ensuring call lights were accessible and answered timely, and by not providing ordered adaptive eating equipment. One resident with a displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the right femur, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, deafness, nonverbal status, difficulty walking, and severely impaired cognition (BIMS score of 0) was observed lying in bed with the bed in the lowest position and the call light wrapped around the television, tucked away and far from the resident’s reach. The resident’s MDS documented dependence in toileting, showers, and ADLs, and the care plan identified risk for falls with interventions including keeping the call light within reach and orienting the resident to surroundings and use of the call light. During the observation, the RN confirmed the call light was not within the resident’s reach. Another resident with diagnoses including rhabdomyolysis, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis, and a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition, was care planned to receive adaptive equipment for eating, including weighted utensils and a plate guard. The resident reported that meal portions were sometimes too small and that they had been receiving double portions recently. While eating independently, the resident struggled to cut a chicken breast using only a weighted fork, became frustrated, and resorted to picking up the chicken breast with the fork and nibbling it, leaving crumbs and honey glaze on their face. The resident stated that a weighted knife and spoon were supposed to be provided but were not sent with the meal this time, and that sometimes they were provided and sometimes not. The lunch meal ticket documented that a weighted fork, weighted knife, and weighted spoon were ordered, but only a weighted fork was present on the tray. Resident Council minutes from two consecutive months documented repeated complaints that call lights were not answered timely, were not accessible, and were not within reach.
Failure to Perform Nurse Assessment Before Moving Resident After Fall
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its fall management policy and professional standards of practice by not ensuring a licensed nurse completed a comprehensive post-fall assessment before the resident was moved. The resident involved was a male with right-sided hemiplegia/hemiparesis following a stroke, abnormal gait/mobility, depression, dementia with moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 9/15), chronic kidney disease, and hypertension with periods of hypotension. His care plan identified him as at risk for falls due to these conditions and potential medication side effects. On the date of the incident, an unwitnessed fall occurred in the resident’s room at approximately 1:15 AM. Documentation in the Incident/Accident Report and Post Fall Evaluation indicated the resident reported he had attempted to use the bathroom, took his IV pole instead of his walker, and tripped over the IV tubing. The report stated that upon the nurse’s entry to the room, the resident was sitting on the bed, his skin was assessed, vital signs were within normal limits, range of motion was performed, and neurological checks were initiated, with no injuries identified. The nursing progress note reflected similar information, indicating the fall was reported to the nurse by a CNA and that the assessment was conducted with the resident already in bed. However, interview statements revealed that the resident had actually been on the bathroom floor immediately after the fall. The CNA who responded to the bathroom call light reported finding the resident sitting upright on the floor with his hands on the assist bars and the IV pole in front of the sink. Believing he had no visible injuries, the CNA assisted him up from the floor and back to bed before notifying the nurse. The CNA stated she normally would not move a resident before the nurse’s assessment. The DON and ADON both reported that facility practice and the written Fall Management Guidelines require that when a resident falls or is found on the floor, the nurse must be notified immediately and the resident must be evaluated for possible injuries to the head, neck, spine, and extremities prior to moving the resident. This did not occur for this resident, resulting in the lack of a comprehensive assessment for injury by a licensed nurse while the resident was still on the floor post-fall.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Showers per Resident Preference and Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide bathing care according to a resident’s stated preferences and plan of care. A male resident with right-sided hemiplegia/hemiparesis following a stroke, abnormal gait/mobility, depression, dementia, and moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 9/15) had a documented self-care ADL deficit related to CVA, cognitive impairment, and history of failure to thrive. His care plan, revised on 3/18/26, and the Kardex both specified that he preferred showers on the evening shift, scheduled on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and that staff were to assist him to bathe/shower as preferred per the shower schedule and as needed. A nursing progress note dated 3/18/26 documented that his shower dates were updated per resident request to Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evenings. Review of shower/bath documentation for the month of April showed that, out of 13 scheduled showers, there was no documentation of showers being provided on three scheduled days: 4/3/26, 4/20/26, and 4/27/26. A family member reported that the resident was supposed to receive showers on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but these were not always completed as scheduled. The DON confirmed that the resident’s shower schedule had been changed to three times per week on those days per family request and was unable to provide documentation of showers offered or completed on the three missing dates prior to survey exit. This was inconsistent with the facility’s ADL policy, which required provision of appropriate hygiene care and documentation of the assistance needed in the care plan and Kardex.
Inaccurate and Incomplete Treatment Documentation for Multiple Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain accurate and complete medical records and treatment documentation for multiple residents, resulting in uncertainty about whether ordered care was provided and conflicting information between records and staff reports. For one resident with muscle weakness and type 2 diabetes, review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed repeated missing documentation for several ordered treatments, including daily compression stockings for edema, daily vital signs with SpO2 monitoring, use and replacement of a PureWick external catheter, application of Calmoseptine for MASD every shift, monitoring of an alternating pressure mattress every shift, application of lymphedema boots every shift with progress notes for refusals, and wound care to the right lateral thigh every shift. On multiple dates in April, there was no documentation indicating whether these treatments were completed or missed, and no reasons recorded for any missed care. The DON stated that nurses were supposed to document completion or missed treatments with reasons, and acknowledged there was no one ensuring that nurses completed all treatment documentation and that she was unaware of the multiple missing treatment records for this resident. For another resident admitted with repeated falls and difficulty walking, the TAR contained an order to encourage use of an incentive spirometer every four hours, with staff assistance, for respiratory health. On numerous entries, nursing staff documented the code “07-Other/See Progress Notes,” but there were no corresponding progress notes explaining what occurred with the treatment. The TAR also showed the treatment documented as administered at certain times, while interviews with the family member, NP, RN, and DON revealed conflicting accounts about whether the resident had an incentive spirometer available and whether it was being used. The family member reported believing staff were not using the spirometer and that it might have been lost. The NP reported the order was placed at the family’s request, that the resident was not capable of using the device, and that she had heard staff might have lost it, creating a conflict with TAR entries showing the treatment as given. An RN reported the facility did not have an incentive spirometer and did not think the resident ever had one, and could not explain why she had documented “07-Other/See Progress Notes” without any corresponding note. The DON confirmed the resident had been admitted with an incentive spirometer and that nurses were supposed to write a progress note when using the “07” code, but she could not explain why some nurses documented the treatment as administered while others used “07” without explanation, leaving her unable to confirm whether the treatment was actually offered. For a third resident with sarcoidosis and muscle weakness, who was cognitively intact per a recent MDS BIMS score, the TAR showed an order for Ipratropium-Albuterol (DuoNeb) inhalation solution three times daily for three days for asthma exacerbation. The TAR reflected the treatment as administered twice on the first day, three times on the second day, and once on the third day, with subsequent entries coded as “07-Other/See Progress Notes” by an LPN, but without any related progress notes in the record. Progress notes from the NP documented that nebulizer treatments had been ordered for wheezing and cough, but later entries stated that the resident reported she never received the nebulizer treatments and that these were never administered because staff could not locate a nebulizer. In interview, the resident reported having a severe cough and shortness of breath since early in the month and stated that although albuterol treatments were ordered, nursing staff never administered them despite her informing staff and the NP. The NP confirmed the resident’s report that she had not received the treatments and stated she had informed the DON. The LPN who documented “07-Other/See Progress Notes” reported she did so because the facility did not have a nebulizer and she had to call to get one ordered, and she could not explain why other nurses had documented the treatments as administered when there was no nebulizer available. The DON acknowledged there was a delay in obtaining a nebulizer, which delayed the resident’s ordered treatments, and could not explain why staff documented administration of treatments that could not have been given. The facility’s own documentation policy stated that documentation should be factual, objective, accurate, relevant, complete, and that false information would not be documented, which conflicted with the observed charting practices.
Failure to Provide Care Plan Copies and Notify Representative of Significant Care Changes
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident and the resident’s representatives were provided with a copy of the person‑centered care plan and updates, and were adequately informed of significant changes in care and services. The resident, admitted on 03/27/26 with diagnoses including dementia, heart disease, and a sacral pressure ulcer, had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for most ADLs per the 04/02/26 MDS. The active care plan initiated at admission included multiple problem areas such as impaired vision and hearing, fall risk, chronic pain, self‑care deficit, indwelling urinary catheter, pressure ulcer, repositioning needs, and nutritional risk. Subsequent care plan additions documented multiple new or evolving conditions, including cognitive fluctuation, risk for behavior and mood changes, risk for dehydration, anemia, hypothyroidism, constipation risk, and an actual urinary tract infection, as well as nutrition‑related monitoring and RD involvement. Despite these care plan elements and changes, the resident’s POA reported not having received a copy of the care plan and recalled only an orientation meeting without receiving the plan at that time. Care conference notes dated 03/30/26 and 03/31/26 showed that section seven, titled “Plan of Care,” was left blank, indicating that documentation of offering or providing the care plan was not completed. The social worker stated that the POA and representatives attended the initial care conference and that the standard practice would be to offer and provide a copy of the plan of care and orders, but there was no evidence this occurred. The social worker also confirmed that any listed representative in the EMR could receive information, yet reported no prior contact with the resident’s representatives other than the POA. In addition, there were multiple documented concerns from the resident’s representatives and POA about lack of information and communication regarding the resident’s care, including therapy services and wound care. Representatives reported being told that PT and OT had stopped without explanation, and the Director of Rehab Services confirmed that the therapy end date was 04/27/26 and that no notification of the end of services had been given to the POA. The POA and representatives described leaving messages for the DON and emailing the social worker, administrator, and medical director about care concerns without timely responses. Progress notes and wound documentation showed changes in wound status, including order changes for heel wounds, a new right lower extremity wound, a skin tear on the left foot, and a note that three buttock wounds had merged into one, but there was no indication in the record that the POA was contacted about these changes in the care plan and wounds, despite facility policy requiring notification of the resident and representative for significant changes in condition and treatment.
Failure to Identify and Treat New Foot Wound and Address Reported Hearing Concerns
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to identify and appropriately treat a new wound on a resident’s right third toe and to address earwax buildup for another resident, despite reported concerns. One resident with diabetes mellitus, diabetic polyneuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, prior right great toe amputation, and a new diagnosis of acute osteomyelitis of the right ankle and foot was cognitively intact and able to make needs known. He reported that after his right great toe amputation, he developed a pressure ulcer on the top of the second toe and another on the third toe that tunneled through, and he stated staff never identified and did not treat the third toe wound appropriately. Review of his medical record and nursing progress notes showed documentation and ongoing treatment of a right second toe wound but no documentation of a third toe wound prior to the later amputation of additional toes. Wound care documentation and related tools showed that a new in-house–acquired wound on the right second toe was identified and tracked over several weeks, with measurements and treatments recorded on a spreadsheet used by the wound care nurse to communicate with the NP. However, a wound care note and photograph dated 03/09/2026 showed black/brown eschar on the tips of the right third and fourth toes, while the spreadsheet for that date did not list any new wound on the third toe. The wound care nurse stated she performed weekly skin assessments on Mondays and reported that there was nothing noted on the third toe on 03/09/2026, and she indicated she did not see concerns with the third and fourth toes in the photograph, attributing the dark areas to lighting until the surveyor zoomed in on the image. The NP reported that she did not make rounds with the wound care nurse and relied on the spreadsheet to write orders; her visit notes and wound care documentation referenced only the second toe ulcer and described it as stable, with no mention of a third toe wound. Additional record review revealed that a physician assistant note dated 03/11/2026 documented eschar present on the second and third toes of the right foot, with the third distal toe eschar described as irritated, and global swelling of the foot noted. Nursing progress notes showed frequent wound care entries referencing only the right second toe, including on the day before the resident went on a leave of absence, and a note on 03/15/2026 by the wound care nurse stating that upon the resident’s return there was a new open area on the right third toe and that the resident requested transfer to the hospital for wound evaluation. Hospital records from that admission described an infected ulcer on the right third toe with subcutaneous gas, recurrent diabetic foot ulcer, and chronic ulcer on the second toe, and the resident subsequently underwent amputation of the second and third toes. Interviews with nursing staff showed poor recall of the third toe wound, with one RN stating she usually assessed the entire foot during dressing changes but did not think she did so in this instance, and the wound care nurse and DON were unable to identify when the third toe wound was first recognized in facility documentation. The deficiency also includes failure to address reported earwax buildup for another resident with traumatic subdural hemorrhage and dementia, who had severe cognitive impairment on MDS assessment but only minimal hearing difficulty and did not use hearing aids. The resident’s guardian reported by telephone that the resident seemed to have increased difficulty hearing and that they had asked for the resident’s hearing to be checked, but nothing was done. There was no documentation in the report of assessment or treatment of earwax buildup or follow-up on the guardian’s request, indicating that the facility did not provide appropriate care in response to concerns about the resident’s hearing and possible cerumen impaction.
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.
