Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Bayville, New Jersey.
- Location
- 395 Lakeside Blvd, Bayville, New Jersey 08721
- CMS Provider Number
- 315125
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- May 8, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A staff member failed to immediately report witnessing two residents with cognitive impairments engaged in sexual activity, instead completing her task and taking a lunch break before informing a co-worker. This delay was contrary to facility policy, and staff interviews revealed confusion about the residents' capacity to consent. The incident was not promptly addressed, and the safety of the involved residents and others was not immediately ensured.
A staff member observed two residents engaged in an incident but failed to immediately report it, instead completing her task and taking a lunch break before notifying a co-worker. The delay in reporting was confirmed through interviews, and the residents involved had cognitive and behavioral histories relevant to the event. Facility administration did not ensure staff followed established protocols for immediate reporting and intervention.
The facility was unable to provide its QAPI plan and meeting minutes when requested by surveyors, as the responsible staff member could not access or print the documents due to lack of internet access. This resulted in a failure to demonstrate evidence of an ongoing QAPI program as required by regulations.
A staff member without CNA certification was found performing ADLs for a resident with cognitive impairment, despite facility policy and job descriptions restricting such care to certified personnel. Facility leadership was unaware of the staff member's actions, and documentation confirmed the individual was not authorized to provide direct care.
The facility did not meet required CNA staffing ratios on all reviewed day shifts, consistently providing fewer CNAs than mandated by state law for the number of residents present. This deficiency was identified through a review of staffing records in response to complaints and had the potential to affect all residents.
A review of nurse staffing reports revealed that the facility did not meet the minimum required staffing hours on one day, providing 480 hours instead of the required 484 hours. This deficiency was identified during the investigation of two complaints.
A resident was physically and verbally abused by the DON, who hit the resident with a broom during an altercation. The incident, witnessed by several staff members who failed to intervene or report it, was recorded and circulated on social media, leading to a police investigation. The resident, with a history of major depressive disorder, dementia, and epilepsy, was reportedly agitated and holding a blue disposable razor during the incident.
A facility failed to investigate and report an abuse allegation involving the DON hitting a resident with a broom, as captured in a video posted online. The incident was not reported to the Department of Health, and the DON remained employed until months later. The resident involved had a history of cognitive impairment and aggression, but there was no documentation of the incident in their records. Facility policies requiring immediate action and investigation of abuse allegations were not followed.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was recorded being hit by the DON, and the video was shared on social media by an LPN, violating privacy and confidentiality policies. Despite training, the LPN was unaware of these policies, leading to a breach of the resident's rights.
A facility failed to report an incident where the DON hit a resident with a broom, as seen in a video on social media. The resident, with severe cognitive impairment, was involved in a verbal and physical altercation with the DON. Several staff members witnessed the event but did not intervene or report it to authorities. The facility's policies on abuse and incident reporting were not followed.
A resident with a history of aggressive behavior and mental health issues was physically abused by a CNA and a Smoking Monitor in a hallway. Despite the resident's pleas, the staff continued to kick and punch the resident until an LPN intervened. The resident was hospitalized with serious injuries. The facility failed to follow its abuse policy, as the staff involved were not immediately removed from care, and the incident was not promptly reported. Surveillance footage was not reviewed in time, and the facility's leadership was not fully informed until police involvement.
A resident with a history of aggression was physically assaulted by staff members, resulting in serious injuries. The facility failed to conduct a timely investigation or report the incident to the police. No incident report was completed on the day of the incident, and witness statements were delayed. The facility's policies on abuse and incident investigation were not followed, placing the resident and others at risk.
A resident with a history of aggressive behavior and multiple diagnoses was harmed due to the facility's failure to implement care plan interventions. The resident was physically assaulted by staff members, resulting in serious injuries. The care plan, which included specific interventions to manage the resident's agitation, was not followed, leading to the incident. The facility's policy emphasizes the importance of care plan implementation to prevent harm, but staff actions contradicted these guidelines.
A resident with a history of aggressive behavior was physically abused by staff members in a LTC facility. The LNHA failed to prevent the abuse, follow the facility's abuse policy, and conduct a timely investigation. The resident sustained serious injuries and was sent to the hospital. The incident was not immediately reported, and staff involved continued to work with other residents. The facility's administration did not follow its own policies, placing all residents at risk.
A facility failed to implement PASARR Level II recommendations for a resident with Traumatic Brain Injury, Impulse Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder. Despite recommendations for psychiatric consults and other mental health services, the resident was not seen by a psychiatrist, and the facility lacked a policy on PASARR implementation.
The facility failed to update the care plans for two residents who made abuse allegations against staff. Despite investigations and the presence of local authorities, the care plans were not revised with new interventions. Both residents had severe cognitive impairments and a history of making false allegations, but their care plans lacked updates following the incidents.
Failure to Immediately Report and Respond to Resident-to-Resident Sexual Incident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a staff member failed to immediately report an observed incident involving two residents engaged in sexual activity. The staff member entered the room, witnessed the event, completed her task of collecting hangers, and then left the room without reporting the incident. She subsequently went on her lunch break for approximately 30 minutes before informing a co-worker, who then reported the incident to the appropriate supervisory staff. This delay in reporting was contrary to the facility's policy, which requires prompt reporting of any witnessed abuse or neglect to the charge nurse. Both residents involved had documented cognitive impairments, as indicated by their Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scores. The medical records and care plans showed that one resident had a history of seeking sexual intimacy and related behaviors, while the other also had cognitive limitations. The staff and supervisory interviews revealed uncertainty among staff regarding the residents' capacity to consent to sexual activity, especially given their BIMS scores. Despite the facility's policy allowing sexual intimacy between consenting adults deemed capable by MDS guidelines, staff were unclear about the application of these guidelines in this situation. The failure to immediately report the incident and ensure the safety of both residents, as well as all other residents in the facility, constituted a breach of the facility's abuse/neglect policy. The delay in reporting and lack of immediate intervention placed all residents at risk, as the staff did not promptly assess or secure the safety of those involved or others who might be affected. The deficiency was identified through interviews, medical record reviews, and examination of facility documentation, confirming that the required procedures were not followed.
Plan Of Correction
F 600 Tag F0600 438.12 Free from Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation 1. Corrective Action – On [R] Resident#1 and Resident #2 were [R] and placed on [R] by nursing. – On [R] Resident #1 and Resident #2 were transferred to the local hospital for evaluation. – On [R] the incident was reported to local [R]. – On [R] upon return from the hospital, Resident #1 and Resident #2 were placed on [R]. – On [R] the US FOIA (b)(6) received education from the HR Director on [R] and [R] and timely reporting. – Or [R] the US FOIA (b)(6) received a final discipline from HR Director for lack of timely reporting of the event to the appropriate staff. – On NJ Exec Order 26, the facility orientation for new employees was revised by the HR Director to include education on and NJ Exec Order 26.4 NJ Exec Order 26.4b1 and timely reporting. – Or NJ Exec Order 26.4D, the employee annual orientation requirements have been revised by the HR Director to include sexual abuse, timely reporting, and resident's ability to consent to sexual activity. 2. Identification of other residents or areas having the potential to be affected due to the nature of the deficiency: – All residents have potential to be affected by the deficient practice. 3. Measures Put in Place: – The DON/designee will conduct facility education for all staff and assess all staff competency related to abuse and neglect, timely reporting, and facility sexual intimacy policy monthly for 6 months. – The HR and/or designee will randomly audit monthly, for 6 months, 10 employees' comprehension of facility abuse and neglect policy and timely reporting. 4. How Will These Actions Be Measured: – The results of the monthly audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission and reporting. The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held on June 6, 2025.
Removal Plan
- Educated facility staff on the facility's policy on NJ Exec Order 26.4b1
- Educated staff on the ability for residents to consent to NJ Exec Order 26.4b1 with each other
- Educated staff to report any incidents between residents and ensure the NJ Exec Order 2 residents were safe
- Conducted audits to monitor compliance with education
- Conducted staff assessment and testing to ensure staff had a true understanding of education
Failure to Ensure Timely Reporting and Implementation of Policies Following Resident Incident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when facility staff failed to implement policies and procedures regarding an incident between two residents. A staff member entered the room of two residents, observed one resident engaged in an act with the other, and then proceeded to finish her task of collecting hangers before leaving the room. Instead of immediately reporting the incident to a supervisor or nurse as required, the staff member went on her lunch break for approximately 30 minutes. Upon returning from lunch, she reported the incident to a co-worker, who then reported it to the appropriate personnel. The delay in reporting was confirmed during interviews, with the staff member admitting she was aware of the need to report immediately but did not do so out of fear and uncertainty about her supervisor's availability. The residents involved had relevant medical histories and cognitive assessments documented in their records. One resident had a BIMS score indicating impaired cognitive function, and the other also had a care plan noting a history of certain behaviors and interventions. The facility's investigation and interviews with staff revealed that both residents were questioned about the incident, with one denying and the other confirming what was observed. Staff interviews further indicated confusion and inconsistency regarding the residents' capacity to consent to the observed actions, particularly in relation to their BIMS scores. The facility's administration was found to have failed in ensuring that staff followed established protocols for reporting and responding to such incidents. The administrator and department heads were not immediately aware of the delay in reporting, and the staff member's written statement did not accurately reflect the sequence of events. The deficiency was identified as placing all residents at risk due to the failure to ensure prompt reporting and intervention, as required by facility policy and regulatory standards.
Plan Of Correction
F835 Administration 1. Corrective Action: - Effective May 13, 2025, the Administrator of record is no longer employed at the facility. The new Administrator of record began on NJ Ex Order 26.4(b)(1). - On May 15, 2025, the corporate Administrator oriented the new Administrator of record to her job description, previous and current plans of corrections, and statement of deficiencies. 2. Identification of other areas having the potential to be affected due to the nature of this deficiency: - All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. 3. Measures Put in Place: - The corporate Administrator and/or designees will meet weekly with the new Administrator of record for 4 weeks and then monthly for 6 months to assure that processes and procedures are compliant with company policy. 4. How Will These Actions Be Measured: - The results of the weekly and monthly audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. - Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission of reporting. - The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held on June 6, 2025.
Removal Plan
- Educated the Administrator on their job description.
- Educated the department heads on their roles and responsibilities to ensure the facility administration maintains the highest practicable, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident.
- Educated the governing body on their roles and responsibilities to ensure the facility administration maintains the highest practicable, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident.
Failure to Provide QAPI Documentation During Survey
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain documentation and demonstrate evidence of its Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program as required by federal and state regulations. During a survey, the surveyor requested the facility's QAPI plan and the most recent meeting minutes. The staff member responsible for these documents stated she was unable to retrieve or print them due to a lack of internet access, as the documents were stored on her computer and not otherwise accessible. Further interviews confirmed that the QAPI plan and meeting minutes were not readily available to the surveyors upon request. The staff member acknowledged that the QAPI documentation should have been accessible but was not, citing technical limitations as the reason. The facility's own policy requires that minutes of all meetings be recorded and documentation maintained according to internal policy, but this was not achieved at the time of the survey. No information was provided in the report regarding specific residents or their medical conditions in relation to this deficiency. The deficiency was identified solely based on the facility's inability to provide required QAPI documentation and evidence of an ongoing QAPI program during the survey process.
Plan Of Correction
F865 QAPI 1. Corrective Action: On 4/23/25 upon identification, the Administrator printed a copy of QAPI meeting minutes, performance improvement plans, data tracking logs, and related documentation, sent the information to the DOH and placed the printed items in a QAPI binder entitled QAPI 2025. 2. Identification of other residents or areas having the potential to be affected due to the nature of this deficiency: All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. 3. Measures Put Into Place: Monthly audits X6 months will be conducted by the Administrator or their designee to ensure the QAPI binder is current and complete. 4. How Will These Actions Be Measured: The results of the monthly audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission and reporting. The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held June 6, 2025. S 000
Uncertified Staff Member Performed Resident Care Duties
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a staff member assigned as a "Monitor" was found performing resident care activities, specifically Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), for a resident. The staff member, referred to as Monitor #1, did not possess a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) license, as confirmed by a review of her personnel file and her own admission during an interview. Monitor #1 stated that she had attended CNA school and had taken the certification test but failed. Despite this, she reported performing tasks such as changing and caring for residents, which are duties reserved for certified and competent nurse aides. Further investigation revealed that facility leadership, including the Director of Nursing and other administrative staff, were not aware that Monitor #1 was providing direct resident care. The facility's job description for the "Monitor" position did not include providing resident care, but rather focused on supervision, assistance with transportation, and support during mealtimes and leisure activities. The facility was unable to provide an assignment sheet for the relevant date, and interviews confirmed that the Monitor was not authorized to perform CNA responsibilities. The resident involved had a history of cognitive impairment and required significant assistance with daily activities.
Plan Of Correction
F728 Hiring/Use of Nurse Aides 1. Corrective Action - On 4/10/25, monitor #1 received an education and disciplinary action for failure to adhere to their job description. - On [R], monitor #1 was terminated and is no longer employed at the facility. - On 4/10/25, HR Director audited all nursing assistant files to assure they are within their 120 days based on regulatory requirement. All nursing assistants (total of 11) met regulatory criteria for employment as nursing assistants. - On 4/10/25, HR Director audited all nursing assistants to ensure compliance with job description and scope of practice. - On 4/10/25, HR Director educated all monitors (9) on their job description. - On 4/10/25, HR Director audited all monitors' employee files for signed job description and not providing direct care to residents. 2. Identification of other residents or areas having the potential to be affected due to the nature of the deficiency: - All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. 3. Measures Put Into Place: - HR Director and/or designee will audit monthly X6 months all nursing assistants to ensure that they do not work more than 120 days. - Director of Nursing/designee will audit the monitors' performance to assure it is compliant with their job description weekly X4 weeks and then monthly X6 months. 4. How Will These Actions Be Measured: - The results of the weekly and monthly audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. - Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission and reporting. - The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held on June 6, 2025.
Failure to Meet Mandatory CNA Staffing Ratios on Day Shifts
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to meet mandatory staffing ratios for Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) on all 14 day shifts reviewed during the period from 03/23/25 to 04/05/25. According to the New Jersey Department of Health requirements, the facility was required to have one CNA for every eight residents during the day shift. However, staffing records showed that the number of CNAs present each day was consistently below the required minimum, with the facility having between 15 and 18 CNAs for 187 to 192 residents, when at least 23 to 24 CNAs were needed per shift. This deficiency was identified during a review of facility documents in response to complaints NJ182091 and NJ185153. The deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility, as the staffing shortfall occurred on every day shift reviewed within the two-week period. The report references state law and regulations that specify the minimum staffing requirements and details the exact shortfall for each day, but does not provide information about specific residents or their medical conditions at the time of the deficiency.
Plan Of Correction
S560 Mandatory Access to Care 1. Corrective Action - Staffing coordinator as educated on New Jersey state staffing ratio requirements by the DON on May 19, 2025. - Efforts to hire facility staff will continue until there is adequate staff to meet the minimum staff to resident ratios. Until that time, the facility will use staffing agencies and offer additional shifts to current staff with bonuses as required. 2. Identification of other residents or areas having the potential to be affected due to the nature of the deficiency: - All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. 3. Measure Put into Place: - Weekly recruitment, retention and employee appreciation meeting was initiated and will be led by the Director of Human Resources and/or designee. - Hiring and recruitment efforts including pay for experience, online job listing, job fairs, shift differentials and referral bonuses are being utilized to continue to be competitive in the marketplace. - The facility administrator/designee will continue to track and document any recruitment and retention efforts weekly. - The administrator, DON/designee will review staffing schedules weekly to ensure adequate staffing for all shifts. 4. How Will These Actions Be Measured: - The results of the weekly recruitment and retention audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission and reporting. The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held on June 6, 2025.
Failure to Meet Minimum Nurse Staffing Requirements
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to meet the minimum required nurse staffing levels for 1 out of 14 days during the review period. Specifically, on one day, the actual staffing hours provided were 480, which was 4 hours less than the required 484 hours. This deficiency was identified through a review of the Nurse Staffing Reports for the weeks of 03/23/25 and 03/30/25, as part of the investigation of two complaints (NJ182091, NJ185153). No additional details about specific residents, their medical history, or their condition at the time of the deficiency are provided in the report.
Plan Of Correction
5/22/25 S1680 Mandatory Nurse Staffing 1. Corrective Action: - Staffings coordinator was educated by the DON, on New Jersey state staffing regulation related to nursing services by registered professional nurses, licensed practical nurses, and nurse's aide requirements on May 19, 2025. - Efforts to hire facility staff will continue until there is adequate staff to meet the minimum nursing staff to resident ratios. 2. Identification of other residents or areas having the potential to be affected due to the nature of this deficiency: - All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. 3. Measures Put in Place: - The administrator, DON/designee will review staffing schedules weekly to ensure adequate nursing staffing for all shifts. 4. How Will These Actions Be Measured: - The results of the weekly audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission and reporting. The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held on June 6, 2025.
Failure to Prevent and Report Resident Abuse by Staff
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent physical and verbal abuse towards a resident by a staff member, specifically the Director of Nursing (DON), who was observed hitting a resident with a broom. This incident was recorded by a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and later circulated on social media, prompting a police investigation. The abuse was witnessed by several staff members, including another LPN, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), and a Housekeeper, none of whom intervened or reported the incident. The DON was heard making a threatening statement towards the resident during the incident. The incident occurred when the DON was called to the unit due to the resident's aggressive behavior. The resident, who had a history of major depressive disorder, dementia, and epilepsy, was reportedly agitated and threw a chair at the DON. The DON then used a broom to hit the resident, who was allegedly holding a blue disposable razor. The facility's reportable event documentation did not include a thorough investigation or proper notification to the Department of Health, and the DON remained employed for an extended period after the incident. The facility's policy on abuse was not followed, as the incident was not reported immediately, and the staff involved were not removed from resident care promptly. The DON had received training on abuse prior to the incident, yet failed to adhere to the facility's protocols. The lack of intervention and reporting by the staff present during the incident further contributed to the deficiency, as they did not take appropriate action to protect the resident or notify the authorities.
Plan Of Correction
Immediate Action On NEX OTGOT 20.4161 US. FOLA (was suspended pending investigation. (Terminated) NJ Ex Order 26. 481. Administrator/ADON/HR contacted Board of Nursing on 12/30/2024 to report involvement in incident, and to report the two nurses who observed, recorded video and did not intercede to help, but sent the video to a friend to post. Those nurses no longer work at facility. C.N.A. #1 and C.N.A. #3 were reported to Department of Health for not interceding to help and not reporting. 12/24/24 Education was given to staff C.N.A. #1, and C.N.A. #3, and on how to follow company policy on abuse and report immediately to the abuse coordinator, intervene and call the police. 12/24/24 Morning/clinical meeting audit process started to assure allegations of abuse and neglect and grievances are addressed and investigated within policy. Audits will be completed 3x weekly for the next 4 weeks and monthly for the next 6 months. Other residents having potential to be affected by the same deficient practice All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. What measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not return. On 12/23/24, (completed 12/25/24) the Assistant Director of Nursing/or designee immediately educated all staff on abuse, neglect and exploitation and deescalating resident behavior, and the importance of reporting all incidents to the abuse coordinator timely, calling police, and intervening. The Interim DON/designee will conduct this education monthly for the next six months. Administrator/DON/ADON/designee will audit education each month to assure all employees have had education. Audits will be conducted 3x's weekly for four weeks and then monthly for the next six months. The Administrator/Interim DON/designee will audit compliance with the education on abuse and conduct 5 random staff assessment and test to assure staff have a true understanding of the facilities abuse policy. Audits will be completed 3x's weekly for four weeks and then monthly for the next four months. The education on the facilities abuse policy and the importance of reporting all incidents to the abuse coordinator immediately, interceding in the situation and calling the police, will become part of our orientation education as well as our annual education. 12/30/2024 Ad Hoc Resident council meeting was held to educate residents on abuse and to ask that if they see something to please say something. Social services/activity director educated them on the signs hanging on units for calling the abuse coordinator, and for calling the ombudsman office. The resident rights were read. How the facility plan to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. The results of the weekly and monthly audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission and reporting. The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held on February 21, 2025.
Removal Plan
- Education to all staff on abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
- Education on intervening and calling the police if abuse was witnessed.
- Education on what to do when abuse was reported and the process for reporting abuse.
- A third-party consultant company completed an audit that reviewed all incident and accident reports to ensure that each incident included a thorough investigation and appropriate follow-up.
- The third-party consultant company provided the facility with recommendations based on the audits.
- The staff within the video that witnessed the incident between the DON and Resident #1 were no longer working at the facility.
- The Human Resources Director (HRD) received education from the ADON on the proper reporting process when an abuse allegation was reported to her.
- CNA #1 and CNA #3 who witnessed the incident but were not in the video, continue to work at the facility and education was provided to both staff on intervening and calling the police if abuse was witnessed.
Failure to Investigate and Report Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation into an allegation of witnessed staff-to-resident physical abuse. The incident involved the Director of Nursing (DON) hitting a resident with a broom, which was recorded by an LPN and later posted on social media. The video showed several staff members present during the incident who did not intervene. The DON was identified as the staff member holding the broom, and the resident involved was identified as Resident #1. The incident was not reported to the Department of Health, and the DON remained employed at the facility until her suspension months later. Resident #1, who was involved in the incident, had a history of major depressive disorder, dementia, and epilepsy. The resident's cognitive status was severely impaired, as indicated by a low score on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The resident's care plan noted a potential for verbal and physical aggression, with interventions to allow verbalization of frustrations and provide diversional activities. However, there was no documentation in the resident's progress notes regarding the incident, police notification, or hospital transfer. The facility's policies required immediate action and thorough investigation of abuse allegations, which were not followed in this case. The DON conducted the initial investigation but failed to report the incident to the appropriate authorities. The facility's policy also required the removal of any employee involved in abusive activity from resident care, which did not occur until the DON's suspension. The lack of intervention by other staff members present during the incident further contributed to the deficiency.
Plan Of Correction
Immediate Action On [R] was suspended pending investigation. (Terminated [R]) On 12/21/24 a third-party consulting company was contracted to conduct an independent investigation of the abuse allegation which comprised of review of documentation, care plans, interviews of staff, observation of resident, review of reportable information from [R]. Audit of all incident and accident reports from Waxed to present was conducted to ensure that each incident included a thorough investigation and appropriate follow up. Audit completed 12/26/2024. 12/24/24 Education was given to staff C.N.A. #1, and C.N.A. #3, and on how to follow company policy on abuse and report immediately to the abuse coordinator, intervene and call the police. 12/24/24 Morning/clinical meeting audit process started to assure allegations of abuse and neglect and grievances are addressed and investigated within policy. Audits will be completed 3x's weekly for the next 4 weeks and monthly for the next 6 months. Administrator/ADON/HR contacted Board of Nursing on 12/30/2024 to report involvement in incident, and to report the two nurses who observed, recorded video and did not intercede to help, but sent the video to a friend to post. Those nurses no longer work at facility. C.N.A. #1 and C.N.A. #3 were reported to the Department of Health for not interceding to help and not reporting. Other residents having potential to be affected by the same deficient practice. All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. What measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not return. On 12/23/24, (completed 12/25/24) the Assistant Director of Nursing/or designee immediately educated all staff on abuse investigation protocols, importance of collecting all statements, utilizing the social worker to assist in obtaining the residents statements, assuring the original signed statements are turned into the abuse coordinator, Police are called and reporting all incidents to the abuse coordinator immediately and within 5 days turn in all findings of investigation to Administrator. The Interim DON/designee will conduct this education on abuse investigation protocols for the next six months. Administrator/DON/ADON/designee will audit education each month to assure all employees have had education. Audits will be completed 3x weekly for the next 4 weeks and monthly for the next 6 months. The Administrator/Interim DON/designee will audit compliance with the education on abuse investigation and conduct 5 random staff assessment and test to assure staff have a true understanding of our abuse policy. Audits will be completed 3x's weekly for four weeks and then monthly for next four months. The education on the facility protocols on abuse investigations will become part of our orientation education as well as our annual education. Administrator/Interim DON/ADON/designee will audit abuse reportable events to observe and to assure completeness of investigation and that all statements are collected and are in their original signed form, police were called, incident is reported to Department of Health and Ombudsman. Audits will be conducted three times weekly for four weeks, then monthly for the next four months. 12/30/2024 Ad Hoc QAPI meeting was held to review the results of the third-party consulting company's independent investigation of the abuse allegation which comprised of review of documentation, care plans, interviews of staff, observation of resident, review of reportable information from NJ Esx Order 26. 481. In addition, audit of all incident and accident reports from [R] to present was conducted to ensure that each incident included a thorough investigation and appropriate follow up. Audit completed 12/26/2024. The results of the weekly and monthly audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission and reporting. The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held on February 21, 2025.
Removal Plan
- Education to all staff on conducting a thorough investigation related to an abuse allegation.
- A third-party consultant company completed an independent investigation of the abuse allegation which was comprised of a documentation review, review of the resident's medical records, staff interviews, resident observations, and a review of the reportable event.
- The third-party consultant company conducted an audit of all incident and accident reports to ensure that each incident included a thorough investigation.
- The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) implemented a daily audit to assure abuse allegations were addressed and investigated according to the facility's policy.
Violation of Resident Privacy and Confidentiality
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident's right to privacy and confidentiality when a video of a resident being hit with a broom by the Director of Nursing (DON) was recorded by a staff member and subsequently shared on social media. The incident involved a resident with severe cognitive impairment, as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, and diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder, Dementia, and Epilepsy. The video was recorded by an LPN who was present during the incident and later sent it to a friend who posted it online. This breach of privacy was discovered when local police were notified of the video circulating on social media. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the LPN who recorded the incident was unaware of the privacy and confidentiality policies, despite the facility's policy prohibiting the use of personal electronic devices to record residents without express permission. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) confirmed that staff were trained on these policies upon hire and biannually. However, the LPN did not adhere to these guidelines, resulting in a violation of the resident's privacy and confidentiality rights.
Plan Of Correction
Immediate Action On 12/30/2024 HIPAA privacy and confidentiality education began. U.S. FOIA (b) (6) contacted Board of Nursing on 12/30/2024 to report involvement in incident, and to report the two nurses who observed, recorded video and did not intercede to help, but sent the video to a friend to post. Those nurses no longer work at facility. C.N.A. #1 and C.N.A. #3 were reported to Department of Health as well. Other residents having potential to be affected by the same deficient practice: All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. What measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not return: On 12/30/2024, education was given to all staff on HIPAA privacy and confidentiality. The interim DON/designee will audit education sign-in sheets to assure all staff have been educated on the HIPAA protocols. The audits will be completed weekly for four weeks and then monthly for the next four months. Education on HIPAA confidentiality and privacy will be given monthly for six months. Education on HIPAA confidentiality and privacy will become part of our orientation education as well as our annual education. The Administrator/DON/designee will audit compliance with the education on HIPAA confidentiality and privacy and conduct 5 random staff assessments and tests to assure staff have a true understanding of HIPAA confidentiality and privacy. How the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained: The results of the weekly and monthly audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission and reporting. The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held on February 21, 2025.
Failure to Report and Intervene in Resident Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an incident of witnessed staff-to-resident physical and verbal abuse to the Department of Health and the local Police Department. The incident involved a staff member, identified as the Director of Nursing (DON), hitting a resident with a broom. The event was captured on video and later found on a social media website. Several staff members were present during the incident but did not intervene. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed the identities of the staff involved and the resident, who was identified as Resident #1. Resident #1, who was admitted with diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder, Dementia, and Epilepsy, was involved in the incident. The resident's cognitive status was severely impaired, as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15. The resident's care plan noted a history of verbal and physical aggression, with interventions to redirect and provide diversional activities. However, there was no documentation in the resident's progress notes regarding the incident or any notification to the police or hospital transfer on the date of the incident. The facility's policies on abuse and incident reporting were not followed. The DON, who was involved in the incident, was suspended pending an investigation. The ADON and other staff members were unaware of the full details of the incident until the video surfaced. The facility's policy required immediate reporting and intervention in cases of abuse, which did not occur in this situation. The local police were not notified at the time of the incident, and the facility failed to provide evidence of reporting the event to the Department of Health.
Plan Of Correction
Immediate Action On NJ Ex Order 26. 481 US. FOLA (b was suspended pending investigation. (Terminated NJ Ex Order 26. 481. On 12/21/24 a third-party consulting company was contracted to conduct an independent investigation of the abuse allegation which comprised of review of documentation, care plans, interviews of staff, observation of resident, review of reportable information from Wax Order 26. 4B1 12/23/2024 (completed 12/25/24). Education began on abuse and the importance to report any allegation of abuse immediately. Other residents having potential to be affected by the same deficient practice. All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. What measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not return. On 12/23/24 the U.S. FOIA (b) (6) began education on abuse and the importance to report any allegation of abuse immediately to abuse coordinator, investigation starts immediately and to follow the steps of our accident incident policy to call police and to report to the Department of Health and Ombudsman. Education on our Accident Incident policy will be given monthly for six months. The Abuse and Accident Incident policy education will become part of our orientation education as well as our annual education. The Administrator/Interim DON/designee will audit compliance with the education on Abuse and Accident Incident policy and conduct 5 random staff assessment and test to assure staff have a true understanding of the facility Accident Incident 3 times a week for the first four weeks and then monthly for four months. Administrator/DON/ADON/designee will audit abuse reportable events to observe and to assure the steps in the facility policy are followed such as timeliness of reporting incident, completeness of investigation and that all statements are collected and are in their original signed form, police contacted, and reported to DOH and the Ombudsman office. Audits will be conducted three times a week for one month and then monthly for four months. How the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. The results of the weekly and monthly audits will be submitted to the Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting monthly for 6 months. Based on the results of these audits, a decision will be made regarding the need for continued submission and reporting. The next Quality Assurance and Process Improvement Committee Meeting will be held on February 21, 2025.
Failure to Prevent Abuse and Improper Restraint Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from physical abuse and improperly used a physical hold restraint on a resident with a history of aggressive behavior and multiple mental health diagnoses. On the day of the incident, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and a Smoking Monitor (SM) were observed physically assaulting the resident in the hallway. The resident was found on the floor, being kicked and punched by the staff members, despite the resident's pleas for them to stop. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who arrived at the scene had to repeatedly instruct the staff to cease their actions before they complied. The resident, who had a history of Traumatic Brain Injury, Impulse Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder, was admitted to the hospital with serious injuries, including a splenic laceration and subcapsular hematoma. The facility's records indicated that the resident had been aggressive and had thrown an overbed tray table, leading to a fall. However, the staff's response to subdue the resident was excessively forceful, resulting in significant harm. The facility's investigation revealed that the staff involved had been trained on handling aggressive residents, yet they resorted to inappropriate physical restraint. The facility's policies on abuse and incident reporting were not followed, as the staff involved were not immediately removed from resident care, and the incident was not promptly reported to the appropriate authorities. The facility's leadership, including the Director of Nursing and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator, were not fully informed of the abuse allegations until the police became involved. Surveillance footage that could have provided clarity on the incident was not reviewed in a timely manner, and the facility's failure to act promptly contributed to the severity of the situation.
Removal Plan
- Re-educating all facility staff on the importance of preventing abuse, ensuring resident safety, and the importance of following the facility's abuse policy.
- Re-education on incident investigations, importance of collecting all written statements, utilizing the Social Worker to assist in obtaining the resident statements, assuring the original signed statements are turned into the abuse coordinator, and reporting all incidents to the abuse coordinator.
- Initiated an audit to monitor compliance with the education.
- Conducted a staff assessment and testing to ensure true understanding of the facility's abuse policy.
Failure to Investigate Alleged Staff-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation into an allegation of staff-to-resident physical abuse. On the day of the incident, a CNA observed a resident on the floor being physically assaulted by another CNA and a Smoking Monitor. Despite witnessing the abuse, the LPN on duty had to repeatedly instruct the staff members to stop. The resident was subsequently taken to the nursing station and later sent to the hospital, where they were diagnosed with serious injuries, including a splenic laceration and subcapsular hematoma. The facility did not immediately report the incident to the police, and the initial response was inadequate, as the staff involved continued to work their shifts. The facility's documentation and response to the incident were insufficient. The DON confirmed that no incident report was completed on the day of the incident, and witness statements were not collected promptly. The LNHA and other administrative staff were not informed of the full extent of the incident, including the resident's injuries, until the following day when the police were involved. The facility's policies on abuse and incident investigation were not followed, as the RN supervisor did not complete the necessary reports or notify the appropriate authorities in a timely manner. The resident involved had a history of aggression and was diagnosed with Traumatic Brain Injury, Impulse Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder. Despite these conditions, the facility's care plan for the resident was not effectively implemented, as staff failed to de-escalate the situation before it resulted in physical harm. The lack of immediate and appropriate action placed the resident and others at risk, highlighting significant deficiencies in the facility's handling of abuse allegations and incident investigations.
Removal Plan
- Re-educate all staff on incident investigations
- Emphasize the importance of collecting all written statements
- Utilize the social worker to assist in obtaining the resident statements
- Ensure the original signed statements are turned into the abuse coordinator
- Report all incidents to the abuse coordinator
Failure to Implement Care Plan Leads to Resident Harm
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement care plan interventions for a resident with a history of physically aggressive behaviors and multiple diagnoses, including Traumatic Brain Injury, Impulse Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder. On a specific date, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) observed the resident on the floor being physically assaulted by another CNA and a Smoking Monitor (SM). Despite the resident's pleas for help, the staff members continued their actions until a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) intervened. The resident was subsequently taken to the nursing station and later to the hospital, where they were diagnosed with serious injuries, including a splenic laceration and subcapsular hematoma. The facility's failure to follow the care plan was evident as the staff did not intervene appropriately when the resident became agitated. The care plan outlined specific interventions, such as guiding the resident away from distress and engaging them in calm conversation, which were not followed. Instead, the staff used excessive force, resulting in harm to the resident. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) acknowledged that the care plan was not adhered to during the incident. The facility's policy on care plans emphasizes the importance of implementing interventions to prevent harm and maintain residents' functional status. However, the staff's actions during the incident contradicted these guidelines, leading to the resident's injuries. The interdisciplinary team was responsible for ensuring the care plan interventions were implemented, but their failure to do so resulted in a deficiency that placed the resident at risk.
Removal Plan
- Education on ensuring CP interventions were implemented
- Education on the location of the CPs
- Education on how to read the CPs
- Education on the importance of following the CPs
- Education on how to update the CPs
- Audits conducted to monitor compliance with the implementation and following of the CP interventions
- Audits conducted to determine if updates to the CP were required
Failure to Prevent and Investigate Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility's Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) failed to prevent physical abuse of a resident, follow the facility's abuse policy, and conduct a timely and thorough investigation of a reported abuse incident. A resident with a history of aggressive behavior and severe cognitive impairment was involved in an altercation with staff members, resulting in significant injuries. The resident was observed on the floor being physically assaulted by two staff members, a CNA and a Smoking Monitor, who continued their actions despite being told to stop by an LPN. The incident was not immediately reported to the Abuse Coordinator, and the staff involved continued to work with other residents after the event. The facility did not collect accurate and original witness statements, and the investigation was delayed. The resident was sent to the hospital with serious injuries, including a splenic laceration and subcapsular hematoma, after the incident. The facility's failure to implement care plan interventions for the resident's known aggressive behaviors contributed to the situation. The facility's administration did not follow its own policies and procedures for handling abuse allegations. The LNHA did not review camera surveillance until the police were involved, and the incident was initially reported as a regular fall. The DON and ADON did not ensure that an incident report was completed, and witness statements were not properly collected or reviewed. The lack of immediate action and adherence to the facility's abuse policy placed all residents at risk for an Immediate Jeopardy situation.
Removal Plan
- The two staff members identified (CNA #2 and the SM) were terminated from the facility.
- Disciplinary action was initiated for the three employees (CNA #1, LPN#1, and SW#1) who witnessed the incident and did not report it to the Abuse Coordinator.
- Education was provided to all administrative staff about the facility's abuse and investigation policy which included immediate steps taken when an abuse allegation was made and ensuring the safety of all residents.
- Education was provided to all staff on the importance of preventing abuse, ensuring resident safety, and the importance of following the facility's abuse policy to protect all residents.
- Education was provided to all staff on the importance of collecting all truthful statements in their original form, utilizing the SW to assist in obtaining resident statements, and assuring the original signed statements were all submitted to the Abuse Coordinator.
- Education on ensuring implementation of care plan interventions was provided to all the staff.
- Audits were conducted that monitor compliance with the implementation, following of care plan interventions, and if updates to the care plan were required.
- Audits were initiated by the DON that monitor compliance with all staff education.
- The DON conducted staff assessments and testing to ensure that staff have a true understanding of the facility's abuse policy.
Failure to Implement PASARR Recommendations for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement the recommendations from a resident's Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II determination. This deficiency was identified for one resident who was admitted with diagnoses including Traumatic Brain Injury, Impulse Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder. The PASARR Level II determination recommended several actions, including a psychiatric consult upon admission, routine follow-up visits with a psychiatrist, medication monitoring, supportive counseling, and the development of a behavioral modification plan. However, the resident's medical record did not show any visits from a psychiatrist during their stay, and the initial assessment from a psychologist was conducted 25 days after admission. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the PASARR recommendations were included in the resident's baseline care plan, but the interdisciplinary team was responsible for ensuring their implementation. The Director of Nursing and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator acknowledged that the recommendations were not followed, as the resident was never seen by a psychiatrist. The facility was unable to provide a policy on PASARR recommendations, indicating a lack of structured guidance for implementing these critical care directives.
Failure to Update Care Plans After Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update the care plans for two residents who made abuse allegations against staff to local authorities. The incidents were reported on 10/17/2024, and investigations were initiated in the presence of local authorities. For one resident, a body check revealed skin alterations on the right side of the body following a fall in the shower, while the other resident showed no skin alterations. Despite these significant events, the care plans for both residents were not updated with new interventions addressing the allegations. The Assistant Director of Nursing acknowledged the importance of updating care plans to ensure all staff are aware of how to care for residents, especially following significant events such as abuse allegations. The facility's policy requires care plans to be revised with any significant changes in a resident's status, yet this was not done for the two residents involved. Both residents had severe cognitive impairments and a history of making false allegations, but their care plans lacked updates following the incidents reported on 10/17/2024.
Latest citations in New Jersey
A resident with schizophrenia, muscle wasting, difficulty walking, and moderate cognitive impairment was discharged home despite prior documentation that their house had no utilities, was in disarray, and had insect infestation. The IDT discussed the need to repair a burst water pipe and relied on the resident’s assurance that repairs would occur, but did not verify that plumbing, heat, or utilities were restored before discharge. Discharge instructions referenced HHA and APS involvement and anticipated HVAC repairs, yet were unsigned, and the HHA later confirmed it had declined the referral and notified the facility. The resident ultimately left via cab without signing the discharge summary, and there was no documented APS referral or confirmation of home safety. After discharge, PD and a social worker found the resident in a home without running water or heat, with limited electricity and expired food, and observed the resident could only descend stairs by scooting on their buttocks, leading to the determination that the facility failed to ensure a safe discharge destination in accordance with its own policy.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, and identified elopement and fall risks exited through a window and was later found on the ground outside with suspected serious injuries, including a possibly fractured leg. Staff documented the unwitnessed fall, transfer to the hospital, and EMS concern for internal injuries after a fall from an estimated 17–18 feet. Despite facility policies requiring reporting of falls, elopements, and potential neglect to appropriate agencies within specified timeframes, the fall with suspected major injury and the elopement were not reported to the state health department because the administrator stated they lacked hospital injury details and did not consider the event an elopement since the resident remained on facility grounds.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and diagnoses including cellulitis, atelectasis, and muscle weakness was care planned as an elopement risk with a WanderGuard bracelet and interventions such as accompaniment to meals, frequent rounding, and redirection. Despite this, the resident, known to wander and whose photo was posted throughout the facility, was able to leave the building after a WanderGuard alarm sounded at the lobby exit. Surveillance showed the receptionist manually deactivated the alarm without identifying its source, and the resident, dressed in a jacket and carrying envelopes, walked behind the receptionist and exited, appearing as a visitor. Staff interviews revealed that clinical staff believed alarms should not be turned off until the resident was located, while the receptionist reported she had been trained to silence the alarm by entering a code and then visually checking from the desk, contributing to the resident’s undetected elopement.
Surveyors found that meals were not consistently prepared or served according to standardized recipes or the posted menu, resulting in unappealing and unpalatable food. A resident reported not receiving the food listed on their meal ticket and described small portions, while all resident council attendees stated the food was not appealing or palatable. During a sampled lunch, the alternate entrée was missing the listed roasted beets and instead included broccoli, a hair was found in the fish entrée, and the smothered turkey patty was deemed not palatable by surveyors. The FSD confirmed the hair in the fish, had not tasted the turkey patty before service, and stated the patty was premade with gravy prepared from powdered mix, and the facility lacked a policy on food flavor or preparation.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and psychiatric diagnoses, previously assessed as an elopement risk and care‑planned with a Safety Band (SB) on the wheelchair and monitoring of whereabouts, was observed by an LPN in the lobby near the front entrance without the LPN approaching, re‑checking the SB, or notifying other staff before leaving at the end of the shift. The receptionist, trained on the elopement book and SB system, reported not seeing the resident in the lobby and not hearing any SB alarm. During subsequent rounds, staff discovered the resident missing, and the resident was later found off premises by police; hospital staff reported that no SB was on the wheelchair. Facility records and interviews showed that, despite policies requiring SB use, front‑desk identification of elopement‑risk residents, and alarm activation when an SB wearer approached exits, the resident was able to leave the building without staff knowledge, leading surveyors to cite an F689 Immediate Jeopardy deficiency for failure to maintain a safe environment and adequate supervision to prevent elopement.
The facility failed to provide and document routine bathing in accordance with ADL care plans and resident preferences for several cognitively intact and impaired residents with conditions including dementia, schizophrenia, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. One resident who required staff assistance for bathing had only a single documented refusal and no other bathing entries over a month. Another resident requiring assistance had no bathing documented over the same period and no refusals recorded. A third resident had only one bath documented in 30 days, and a fourth had no bathing care plan and no documented baths or refusals. In a group interview, three residents reported they never received more than one bath per week, preferred twice‑weekly baths, and described long intervals without bathing, with one stating they believed they smelled and another reporting a family member had to take them home to bathe. Facility leadership confirmed they could not locate documentation showing consistent bathing according to resident preferences.
A resident with multiple complex conditions and g-tube dependence experienced several medication administration errors by an LPN during a medication pass. The LPN gave aspirin with an unreadable expiration date, failed to administer ordered thiamine and lactulose due to unavailability in the cart, did not assess bowel status or give Miralax as intended, and administered a steroid nebulizer before a bronchodilator. The LPN also delivered only 330 ml instead of the ordered 360 ml of Glucerna 1.5 via g-tube and removed a scopolamine patch applied the previous day without verifying the order or replacing it, despite an active 72-hour order. These actions did not follow physician orders or facility medication and enteral feeding policies.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and a PEG tube reported that two female nurses pointed fingers and used swear words toward them during nighttime care, while denying rough physical treatment. The resident did not inform staff but told a family member, who then emailed the facility SW with concerns about rough care and verbal abuse. The SW did not review and elevate this email until returning to work several days later and was unable to confirm whether the allegations were investigated. The LNHA and Regional Clinical Director were not made aware of the alleged abuse until the SW later provided the email, despite facility policy requiring prompt reporting of suspected or alleged abuse.
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records when two residents who required assistance with toileting and were incontinent had multiple missing entries in their Documentation Survey Reports for bowel/bladder elimination, toilet transfers, and toilet hygiene over several days and shifts, despite staff stating that incontinent rounds and EMR documentation should occur routinely with no blanks. In addition, a cognitively intact resident with chronic kidney disease and depression requested a specific roommate and staff reported holding meetings and developing an alternate plan, but there was no documentation in the EMR or grievance file of the roommate request, the meetings, or the resident’s agreement, contrary to facility policies on ADL documentation and room-change requests.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of stroke experienced prolonged delays in receiving a needed tooth extraction despite repeated reports of dental issues and pain. Over several months, staff documented family complaints of tooth and gum pain, a dentist’s finding of a large cavity in tooth #6 requiring extraction, and multiple attempts to obtain and transmit medical clearance, schedule and reschedule appointments, and confirm receipt of paperwork with the community dental office. An appointment was cancelled due to weather, follow‑up calls often went unanswered, medical clearance review by the dental provider was repeatedly delayed, and the oral surgeon’s limited availability further postponed care. The family member reported ongoing requests and frustration with the lack of timely follow‑up, and both the SSD and DON later acknowledged that the resident’s dental care and extraction were not provided in a timely manner.
Failure to Ensure Safe Discharge Home for Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a safe and appropriate discharge home for a resident with schizophrenia, muscle wasting, difficulty walking, and moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS 11/15). The resident had been admitted from an inpatient psychiatric facility after being found by neighbors living in deplorable conditions at home, including a burst water pipe causing water to leak from the house, utilities turned off, the house in complete disarray, and insect infestation. Hospital psychological and social services documentation noted the resident was disheveled, malodorous, had not showered in five years due to fear of slipping, had poor functional status, and had no insight into their condition or deterioration. The facility’s own Social Services Assessment reiterated that the resident’s home had no electricity or water and was in deplorable condition prior to admission. During the stay, the resident’s care plan documented a goal to return to the community and interventions to evaluate and discuss prognosis for independent or assisted living, including identifying and addressing limitations, risks, and needs for maximum independence. The Social Services Director (SSD) and Administrator discussed with the resident the need to fix the broken water pipe before discharge and delayed discharge for the resident to arrange repair. The DON reported receiving a call from the local police department (PD) stating the building was no longer red taped and that the resident could go home anytime if the water pipe was fixed, but this conversation was not documented in the electronic medical record. The SSD stated that the resident was adamant the house was safe to return to and that she arranged home health care and transportation for discharge, relying on the resident’s report that repairs would occur on the day of discharge. The facility did not verify that the water pipe or utilities had actually been repaired or that the home environment was safe before discharge. On the day of discharge, the discharge instructions indicated the resident was to go home via ambulette, that a home health agency (HHA) and Adult Protective Services (APS) would be called for home care, and that an HVAC company would be on-site for repairs the next day per the resident. The discharge instructions were not signed by a nurse or the resident. A progress note documented that the resident left the facility via cab, left before signing the discharge summary, and that attempts to contact the resident afterward were unsuccessful. The HHA later confirmed that it had declined the referral and had notified the facility by email, meaning no home health services were in place. APS confirmed that the conversation with the SSD was not a formal referral and that there was no open APS case or follow-up visit. After discharge, the local PD and a social worker hired by the PD found the resident at home with no running water, no working heat, limited electricity, expired food, and unable to walk down the stairs except by scooting on their buttocks. The PD subsequently contacted the facility questioning why the resident had been discharged home under those conditions. The facility’s own policy required that discharge destinations meet health and safety needs, that unsafe settings be treated similarly to refusal of care with documentation of options offered, and that AMA and APS referral procedures be followed when appropriate; these requirements were not met in this case, leading to the cited deficiency for failure to ensure a safe discharge.
Failure to Report Fall With Injury and Elopement to State Authorities
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report to the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) a fall with injury and an elopement involving a cognitively impaired resident. The resident had diagnoses including follicular lymphoma, schizophrenia, and auditory hallucinations, and a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment showed severely impaired cognition. An Elopement/Wandering Risk Assessment identified the resident as an elopement risk, and the care plan documented wandering, elopement risk related to impaired safety awareness, and risk for falls due to deconditioning and gait and balance problems, with interventions such as structured activities, walking inside and outside, use of an elopement alarm, and education on safety and what to do if a fall occurred. On the date of the incident, a progress note by the DON documented that the resident had a fall and was transferred to the hospital. A Resident Accident/Incident Report recorded that nursing staff could not find the resident in the room or dayroom, then observed the resident’s window screen removed and the window open, and found the resident outside on the ground. The fall was documented as unwitnessed, the extent of injuries was unknown at that time, and the resident was transferred to the hospital. A township police department Investigation Report indicated EMS suspected internal injuries and requested helicopter transport due to suspected serious injuries, and documented that the height from the resident’s window to the ground was between 17 and 18 feet. In an interview, an RN stated that during rounds with the ADON, the resident was not seen, and after searching other rooms, the ADON called out to call 911; the RN then saw the open window and the resident on the ground outside, noting one leg appeared shorter than the other, which she stated could indicate a broken leg. The LNHA acknowledged that falls with major injuries should be reported to NJDOH but stated the fall was not reported because the facility was unable to obtain information from the hospital on the extent of the injuries. The LNHA also stated the exit through the window was not reported as an elopement because the resident did not leave facility grounds. Facility policies on falls, elopement and wandering, incidents and accidents, and compliance with reporting allegations of abuse/neglect/exploitation required reporting of falls, elopements, and incidents that may constitute neglect to appropriate agencies within prescribed timeframes, including immediate notification to appropriate agencies no later than two hours after discovery or forming suspicion, but the fall with suspected serious injury and the elopement event were not reported to NJDOH as required.
Failure to Prevent Elopement of Identified Wander-Risk Resident Despite WanderGuard System
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a safe environment and provide adequate supervision to prevent an elopement by a resident identified as an elopement risk. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including cellulitis of the abdominal wall, atelectasis, and muscle weakness, and had a BIMS score of 8/15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The resident’s care plan, initiated shortly after admission, identified elopement risk related to new admission/change of environment and included interventions such as use of a Wanderguard on the left wrist, accompanying the resident to meals and activities, checking placement and function of the security bracelet, and engaging the resident in activities and conversation to keep them occupied. Despite these planned interventions, the resident was able to leave the facility without staff knowledge. On the date of the incident, the facility’s FRE to the state documented that the resident eloped, triggering a Code Grey for a missing resident. Review of surveillance footage by the Administrator and Environmental Services Director showed that the WanderGuard alarm system activated and that the receptionist manually reset the alarm when no one was visible in the immediate lobby area. After the code was entered to disengage the alarm, the resident appeared from behind the receptionist, dressed in a jacket and carrying large envelopes, and exited through the door, presenting as a visitor. The resident later reported to the surveyor that they had “escaped,” walked out, and walked home, stating they made sure not to get caught, although they did not recall all details. The facility subsequently contacted the resident at home and a staff member escorted the resident back. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistent understanding and practices regarding the WanderGuard system and response to alarms. CNAs, an LPN, and an RN described the resident as a known wanderer and elopement risk whose picture was posted throughout the facility, and they stated that staff would respond to WanderGuard alarms by locating the resident and redirecting them. The ADON and DON stated that policy and expectation were that staff should locate the source of the alarm before deactivating it, and that it was not policy to manually turn off the alarm before the resident was located. In contrast, the receptionist reported that her practice, and how she had been trained, was to type in the code to stop the alarm when it sounded, look around from the front desk, and only if she could not locate the source would she check outside visually from her position and notify leadership, stating she could not leave the front desk. The LNHA acknowledged that surveillance footage showed the receptionist deactivating the alarm without identifying the source, and that the resident, who often sat in the Magnolia lounge near the lobby sensors, went behind the receptionist and left the building while appearing to be a visitor. Further observations by the surveyor showed that when a WanderGuard was activated near the Magnolia lounge, the alarm could not be heard until entering the lobby area, and that the alarm disengaged when the device was moved away from the sensor. In another test with the LNHA, the alarm did not shut off until a manual code was entered. On a separate occasion, the surveyor observed the resident sitting in the Magnolia lounge triggering the WanderGuard alarm, which stopped once the resident was redirected away from the area. The facility’s written policy on wandering and elopements stated that the facility would identify residents at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment. Despite this policy and the resident’s identified elopement risk and care plan interventions, the resident was able to exit the facility undetected after the receptionist manually disengaged the alarm without confirming the source, resulting in the resident’s elopement.
Failure to Provide Palatable, Menu-Compliant Meals Using Standardized Recipes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that standardized recipes were utilized to prepare food in a manner that conserved nutritive value and flavor, and failed to provide palatable and appealing meals as listed on the menu. A resident reported dissatisfaction with the food, stating they did not receive the items listed on their meal ticket and that portion sizes were small. During a resident council meeting, all five members present stated that the food was not appealing and not palatable. The facility’s Food Service Director (FSD) explained that the menu was a set daily menu with a main and alternate entrée, and that the computer system generated resident meal tickets based on diet orders, with any changes or alternates requested through the resident’s nurse. The posted menu for the observed week specified particular items for the main and alternate lunch meals. When surveyors obtained a sample lunch tray containing both the main entrée and the alternate entrée, they observed that the alternate meal did not match the posted menu: the roasted beets listed were not served and broccoli florets were substituted instead. While tasting the main entrée of lemon butter baked fish filet, a surveyor observed a small black curled hair in the fish. Two surveyors tasted the smothered turkey patty and were unable to consume it, noting that the flavor profile did not meet expected standards of palatability. In a subsequent interview, the FSD confirmed the presence of hair in the fish and acknowledged that hair should not be in the food. The FSD also stated she had not tasted the smothered turkey patty prior to service and, upon tasting it at the surveyors’ request, stated she thought it was good. She reported that the turkey patty was premade and the gravy was made from a powdered mix with added water. The facility did not provide a policy related to the flavor or preparation of foods.
Elopement of High‑Risk Resident Due to Inadequate Supervision and Safety Band Oversight
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a safe environment and adequate supervision to prevent the elopement of a resident who had been identified as an elopement risk. The resident had diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and anxiety disorder, and a recent MDS showed a severely impaired cognitive status with a BIMs score of 7/15. An elopement assessment documented that the resident became impatient when waiting to be picked up, self‑propelled toward doors, and had exit‑seeking behavior at times. On the day prior to the incident, nursing documentation noted restlessness, poor impulse control, impatience, and self‑propelling toward the door while expressing a desire to go out front, leading to placement of a Safety Band (SB) on the back of the wheelchair and a care plan focus identifying the resident as an elopement risk with interventions including SB use and monitoring of whereabouts. On the day of the elopement, an LPN assigned to the resident on the 7 AM–3 PM shift documented on the Treatment Administration Record that the SB on the back of the wheelchair had been checked for placement. The LPN later stated in interview that she was aware of the resident’s elopement risk and that interventions included monitoring and redirecting the resident when exit‑seeking behaviors were observed. At approximately 3 PM, the LPN observed the resident seated in a wheelchair in the main lobby near the front door but did not approach the resident, did not verify the presence of the SB on the wheelchair at that time, and did not notify other staff that the resident was in the lobby near the front entrance. The LPN then left the facility at the end of her shift. The receptionist on duty, who had been trained on the Elopement Book and SB system and was responsible for observing for wandering residents near exits, reported that she did not see the resident in the lobby at that time and did not hear the SB alarm. According to the facility’s own incident documentation, the resident was last seen by staff in the first‑floor lobby at approximately 3 PM. During rounds at approximately 3:15 PM, staff on the 3–11 shift discovered that the resident was not in the room and initiated a search. The DON and local police were notified at about 3:20 PM. Police later located the resident in the neighborhood near the facility and transported the resident to the hospital for evaluation. Information obtained by the LPN unit manager from hospital staff indicated that the SB was not on the resident’s wheelchair when the resident arrived at the hospital. Facility leadership concluded, based on staff reports and the absence of the SB on the wheelchair at the hospital, that the SB must have been removed prior to the resident exiting the facility. The SB alarm system itself was reported by maintenance to be functioning properly based on testing before and after the incident. These actions and inactions resulted in the resident leaving the facility without staff knowledge, constituting a failure to implement interventions to maintain a safe environment with adequate supervision to prevent elopement. The facility’s policies on resident elopement and SB use required that residents at risk for elopement be identified, care plans updated after elopement attempts, and interventions implemented by the interdisciplinary team. The SB policy specified that SB placement would aid in elopement prevention, that names and photos of all residents at risk for elopement would be kept in a log at the front desk, and that an alarm would activate if a resident wearing an SB attempted to leave through monitored exits. Despite these policies, the resident, who had been assessed and care‑planned as an elopement risk and ordered to have an SB on the wheelchair with checks each shift, was able to be in the lobby near the front door without effective staff intervention or alarm activation, and subsequently left the facility undetected until discovered missing during shift rounds. The surveyors determined that this failure placed the resident and all residents at risk and constituted an Immediate Jeopardy situation under F689. The facility’s failure to provide a safe environment and adequate supervision to prevent the resident from leaving the facility without staff knowledge placed this resident as well as all residents at risk for elopement, at risk of likelihood of serious harm, injury, impairment, or death.
Failure to Provide and Document Routine Bathing per ADL Care Plans and Resident Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide and document bathing assistance for multiple residents in accordance with their ADL care plans and stated preferences. Facility policy required that residents receive assistance with ADLs, including bathing, every shift as appropriate. For one resident with dementia and a history of stroke who was severely cognitively impaired and required staff assistance for bathing and grooming, the ADL care plan indicated staff participation for bathing and did not note routine refusals. However, ADL documentation over a 30‑day period showed only one recorded bathing refusal and no other entries indicating that the resident had been bathed or had refused additional bathing during that time. Another resident with schizophrenia and depression, who was cognitively intact and required staff assistance with bathing, had an ADL care plan requiring staff participation with bathing and no indication of a tendency to refuse. Review of 30 days of ADL documentation revealed no evidence that this resident had been bathed and no recorded refusals. A third cognitively intact resident with type 2 diabetes and heart failure had an ADL care plan requiring staff participation with bathing, but ADL documentation showed only one bath in the most recent 30 days and no refusals. A fourth cognitively intact resident with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy had no bathing care plan in the record, and 30 days of ADL documentation contained no evidence of any baths or refusals. During a group interview, three cognitively intact residents reported they never received more than one bath per week and had not been bathed according to their preferences, which were to be bathed twice weekly. One resident stated they had just been bathed but had not received a bath for three weeks prior and believed they smelled due to the lack of regular bathing. Another resident reported it had been two weeks since the last bath and that a family member had taken them home to bathe a few days earlier. A third resident reported not having received a bath in a while. In an interview, the administrator, assistant administrator, and DON confirmed that documentation could not be located to show that these residents had been consistently bathed according to their preferences and acknowledged that the expectation was for consistent bathing with documentation of care and any refusals.
Multiple Medication Administration Errors for a G-Tube Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was free from significant medication errors during medication administration. The resident had multiple diagnoses, including history of stroke, type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, gastrostomy (g-tube) status, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right dominant side, and was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 1 out of 15. Active physician orders included thiamine, lactulose, chewable aspirin, Miralax, Duoneb, budesonide, a scopolamine patch, and Glucerna 1.5 via g-tube, as well as nebulized medications. The MAR/TAR for the review period indicated the resident received medications as ordered. During an observed medication pass, the LPN administered aspirin even though the expiration date on the medication label was smeared and not visible. The LPN did not administer lactulose or thiamine after determining these medications were not available in the medication cart and did not obtain them before completing the pass. The LPN stated an intention to assess the resident’s bowel status before giving Miralax but did not perform the assessment and did not administer the Miralax. The LPN also administered the inhaled steroid budesonide before the bronchodilator Duoneb, contrary to the sequence later confirmed by nursing leadership. Additional errors occurred with the resident’s enteral feeding and scopolamine patch. The LPN administered only 330 ml of Glucerna 1.5 instead of the 360 ml ordered via g-tube, while believing the order was for 330 ml. The LPN was unable to locate documentation on the MAR for the scopolamine patch, removed the patch from behind the resident’s left ear without verifying the physician’s order, and did not replace it, even though the patch had been applied the previous day and was ordered to remain in place for 72 hours. Facility policies required medications to be administered safely and in accordance with orders, including verification of the right medication, dose, time, route, and expiration date, and required enteral feeding orders to specify the product and volume for each bolus, which were not followed in this instance. The facility’s failure to ensure the resident received medications as ordered created the potential for this and other residents to experience significant negative physical effects related to the incorrect administration of medication.
Failure to Timely Review and Report Allegation of Verbal Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the failure of the facility Social Worker (SW) to timely review and act upon an email reporting alleged verbal abuse and rough care toward a resident. The resident, who had a BIMS score of 10/15 indicating moderately impaired cognition and required staff assistance with ADLs, reported that on a nighttime occasion two female nurses, one with black hair and one with reddish dark hair, pointed their fingers and swore at them. The resident denied that staff were rough with PEG tube care or caused pain and stated that only swear words were used. The resident did not report the incident to staff but informed a family member the following day. The resident’s concerned contact (CC) sent an email to the facility SW describing care concerns, including allegations of rough care and staff cursing loudly at the resident. This email was sent on 4/10/26, but the SW, who was off until 4/14/26, did not review and bring the email forward until returning and mentioning it in a morning clinical meeting. The SW could not state whether the allegations were investigated. The LNHA and Regional Clinical Director reported that they were unaware of the alleged abuse until 4/16/26 when the SW handed the email to the LNHA. This sequence of events occurred despite the facility’s Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation Prevention Policy requiring staff to report any suspected, actual, or alleged abuse, neglect, or mistreatment to a supervisor, department head, or the administrator.
Failure to Maintain Complete Toileting and Room-Change Documentation in Medical Records
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain accurate and complete medical records in accordance with professional standards, specifically related to documentation of toileting, bowel and bladder elimination, and response to a roommate request. For one resident with osteoarthritis, morbid obesity, and rhabdomyolysis, who had intact cognition and required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting hygiene and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, the Documentation Survey Report v2 (DSR) for April showed multiple missing entries. There was no documentation of bowel and bladder elimination, toilet transfer, or toilet hygiene on several identified dates and shifts, despite the resident’s care plan indicating the need for extensive assistance and the use of a mechanical lift for transfers. Another resident, with heart failure, rheumatoid arthritis, and cachexia, also cognitively intact and requiring partial/moderate assistance with toileting hygiene and transfers, and documented as occasionally incontinent of bowel and frequently incontinent of bladder, had extensive gaps in the DSR for April. There was no evidence of documentation for bowel and bladder elimination, toilet transfer, or toilet hygiene across multiple consecutive days and shifts. Staff interviews confirmed that CNAs were responsible for providing and documenting incontinent care in the electronic medical record, that incontinent rounds were to be completed every two hours to prevent skin breakdown, and that all care provided should be documented with no blanks. The Regional Nurse Consultant and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator acknowledged that there should not be blanks on the DSR and that unit managers were responsible for ensuring CNA documentation, but could not explain the missing entries. The deficiency also includes the lack of documentation regarding a resident’s request for a specific roommate. A cognitively intact resident with chronic kidney disease and depressive disorder had a care plan noting a special relationship with another resident, initiated in early February, and expressed a desire to have that resident as a roommate. The resident reported having told staff about wanting this roommate but still not being placed together. The Unit Manager stated that room change requests were referred to the social worker and that this had been done, and the Director of Social Work and the Administrator both described meetings and an interdisciplinary team discussion in which an alternate plan was developed and agreed upon by the resident. However, there was no documentation in the electronic medical record of the roommate request, the meetings, or the resident’s agreement with the plan, and no grievance was on file, despite facility policies requiring documentation of ADL care in real time and social work involvement in room change requests.
Delayed Dental Extraction and Untimely Dental Services
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure timely routine and 24‑hour emergency dental care for one resident with a decaying tooth. The resident was admitted with a history of stroke and had a BIMS score of 5/15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The care plan called for daily oral care and dental visits as needed. On 12/01/25, a family member reported the resident was complaining of tooth and gum pain, with a dentist having recently diagnosed receding gums and a tooth with an exposed root. The physician ordered a repeat dental consult and PRN Orajel. On 12/03/25, staff attempted to schedule a dental appointment, leaving a voicemail when the dental office did not answer. On 12/11/25, the resident attended a dental appointment where tooth #6 was found to have a large cavity requiring extraction, and the dentist requested medical clearance prior to the procedure. On 12/22/25, the resident was seen by the MD for medical clearance, and the facility contacted the dental office to clarify whether Plavix and aspirin needed to be held, leaving a voicemail. On 01/23/26, the dental office cancelled a scheduled appointment due to inclement weather, and attempts to reach the family member were unsuccessful. On 01/27/26, staff called the dental office to reschedule and were informed that completed medical clearance forms had to be faxed before an appointment could be made; the forms were faxed, but follow‑up calls to confirm receipt were not answered. On 01/29/26, a new extraction appointment was obtained for 02/10/26, with the family member informed, and staff documented that the resident reported no pain at that time, although the family member wanted the tooth extracted as soon as possible. On 02/12/26, the resident returned from the dental office without being seen by a dentist and the appointment had to be rescheduled. On 03/09/26, the dental office again requested written medical clearance for extraction, and staff contacted the resident’s physician and office, with the receptionist stating someone would call back later. On 04/03/26, staff documented that the dental office representative had received the completed and signed medical clearance for review by their doctor and that the oral surgeon only came once weekly, with the office to call back with a date and time. On 04/13/26, staff noted that the medical clearance still had not been reviewed by the dental office MD despite prior assurances, and documented that the resident needed tooth extraction as soon as possible due to pain. Later that day, the dental office confirmed an appointment date and time. The family member reported having requested dental care for several months and expressed frustration with repeated delays and lack of follow‑up by facility staff. The Social Services Director and DON both confirmed that the resident’s dental appointment and tooth extraction had not occurred in a timely manner.
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.
