Aberdeen Health And Rehab
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Aberdeen, South Dakota.
- Location
- 1700 North Highway 281, Aberdeen, South Dakota 57401
- CMS Provider Number
- 435041
- Inspections on file
- 25
- Latest survey
- February 26, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 6 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Aberdeen Health And Rehab during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment, a history of wandering and elopement, and a documented elopement risk assessment score exited the building unsupervised through a bedroom window that lacked an effective safety stopper and had no functioning window alarm, despite the care plan indicating one was in place. Staff last saw the resident around midnight and discovered him missing several hours later, finding the window open with the screen pushed out and later locating the resident outside. Surveyors observed multiple unsecured sliding windows in resident rooms and common areas, including the TV lounge, restorative room, therapy room, chapel, and other rooms, many of which could be opened wide enough for a person to climb out, even near residents identified as elopement risks. Several exit doors were unlocked, unalarmed, or not routinely checked, and staff, including the DON and CNAs, were not fully aware of the resident’s exit-seeking behaviors or of required window alarm interventions, leading to a deficiency at F689 for accident hazards and inadequate supervision.
The facility did not complete the care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment and failed to ensure it was prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals as required.
The facility did not ensure that its services met professional standards of quality, as evidenced by practices that did not align with established guidelines.
The facility did not ensure that an area was free from accident hazards and failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents. Surveyors observed environmental hazards and insufficient staff monitoring, resulting in increased risk of accidents for residents.
Nursing staff failed to document the administration of narcotic medications in the eMAR at the time they were signed out for two residents, with several doses either not recorded or recorded late. In one case, a wasted narcotic was not verified by a second nurse as required. These actions did not meet professional standards or the facility's policy for controlled substance documentation.
A resident with dementia and multiple health conditions suffered severe neglect at a facility, resulting in skin necrosis and significant weight loss. The facility failed to monitor the resident's skin condition and did not inform the family of the deteriorating state until it was too late. The resident was hospitalized with necrotic tissue on both feet and had lost over 30 pounds. Staff interviews revealed inadequate skin assessments and poor communication, leading to the resident's eventual placement in hospice care.
The facility failed to monitor and document the dishwasher temperatures and chemical sanitizer concentration, leading to a deficiency in ensuring proper sanitization of dishes. The new low-temperature mechanical dishwasher, in use since November 2024, lacked logs to verify sanitization levels, contrary to the facility's policy and manufacturer's guidelines.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment, with observations of cluttered rooms, unmade beds, and inadequate housekeeping. Residents reported dissatisfaction with cleaning services, inconsistent linen changes, and lost laundry. Despite previous feedback, these issues remained unresolved, highlighting deficiencies in the facility's housekeeping and maintenance practices.
A resident with a history of skin breakdown was observed multiple times without heel-lift boots, despite a care plan and doctor's orders requiring them. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to these preventative measures, leading to a deficiency in care.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and limited mobility was not effectively participating in a restorative program to walk to meals, as required by her care plan. Instead, she used a wheelchair to move around the facility. Staff interviews revealed a lack of communication and follow-up, resulting in the resident's walking program being missed.
A resident with chronic respiratory conditions did not have her oxygen and nebulizer tubing changed weekly as required by facility policy. The resident expressed concern about the unchanged tubing since her hospitalization, and there was no physician's order for oxygen use documented. Facility staff were unaware of the need for an as-needed order, and the required documentation in the TAR was missing.
Failure to Secure Windows and Exits for Elopement-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a safe environment and adequate supervision for a resident at known risk for elopement, who left the building unsupervised through his bedroom window. The resident had dementia with severe cognitive impairment, anxiety, a documented history of wandering and elopement, and an elopement risk assessment score indicating he was at risk for eloping. He had a physician’s order for a WanderGuard and was identified as a wander risk. On the night of the incident, staff last observed him around midnight; at 4:10 a.m. a CNA entered his room and found him missing, with his window open and the screen pushed out. Staff searched the building and then the grounds, ultimately finding him lying in the grass outside at approximately 4:38 a.m., wearing layered clothing, with no major injuries and normal vital signs. The facility’s own investigation determined that the resident’s bedroom window did not have a safety stopper in place at the time of the elopement, allowing it to be opened far enough for him to climb out. Although the care plan indicated that a window alarm had been placed on his window on the date of the incident, later observation by surveyors showed that there was no alarm on his window, only metal stoppers. The executive director stated that an alarm purchased after the incident did not fit the window and that another had not yet been ordered, and the maintenance director had not informed her of this. Staff interviews revealed that direct care staff were not aware that the resident was supposed to have a window alarm, and his Kardex and pocket care plan did not indicate a window alarm requirement, despite his exit-seeking and wandering behaviors, which included standing by exit doors with his coat and belongings and becoming more upset after family visits. Beyond this resident’s room, surveyor observations on multiple dates showed that numerous other windows and doors throughout the facility were not adequately secured, despite the presence of other residents identified as being at risk for elopement. Several sliding windows in common areas such as the TV room, restorative room, therapy room, chapel, and multiple resident rooms could be opened far enough for a person to climb out and lacked metal stoppers. Some rooms near these unsecured windows housed residents at risk for elopement. Certain windows had stoppers on only one side, allowing the other side to open widely. In addition, several exit doors, including doors in the activity room, near the laundry room and employee break room, and two black doors in the dining room to the courtyard, were found unlocked and/or not alarmed or not properly checked, even though the administrator had attested that all exit door alarms were in working order. The maintenance director acknowledged he had not checked all exit doors since starting employment and had only been oriented to some of the exit doors. The DON reported being unaware of the resident’s exit-seeking behaviors, and CNA behavior documentation was not being completed because nurses were documenting, even though nursing notes largely did not reflect exit-seeking behaviors prior to the incident. These combined inactions and environmental hazards led to the determination of noncompliance at F689 with Immediate Jeopardy. The facility’s policies required elopement risk assessments on admission and at set intervals, updating care plans based on risk, use of WanderGuards for moderate or high-risk residents, prompt response to exit alarms, and completion of missing resident drills on all shifts monthly. The resident’s record showed that elopement risk assessments had been completed and that he was identified as a wander risk with a WanderGuard order, but the environmental controls and care plan implementation did not prevent his unsupervised exit through the window. Staff interviews confirmed that residents had ongoing access to unsecured areas such as the television lounge, restorative therapy room, chapel, and therapy room, and that some of these areas contained windows that could be opened wide enough for egress. The combination of unsecured windows and doors, incomplete implementation of care plan interventions (including the missing window alarm), lack of full awareness of exit-seeking behaviors by key clinical staff, and incomplete maintenance checks on exit doors contributed directly to the resident’s elopement and the broader deficiency related to accident hazards and inadequate supervision.
Failure to Timely Develop and Review Care Plan by Interdisciplinary Team
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment. Additionally, the care plan was not prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals as required. This deficiency was identified through review of facility records and documentation, which showed that the care planning process did not meet the specified regulatory timelines and team involvement.
Failure to Meet Professional Standards of Quality
Penalty
Summary
The nursing facility failed to ensure that services provided met professional standards of quality. This deficiency was identified based on observations and review of facility practices, which did not align with established professional guidelines. The report notes that the facility did not maintain the required level of care as expected by professional standards, but does not provide specific details about the actions or inactions of staff, nor does it mention any particular residents or their medical conditions at the time of the deficiency.
Failure to Maintain Accident-Free Environment and Adequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that an area was free from accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents. Surveyors observed that the environment contained hazards that could lead to resident accidents, and staff did not implement sufficient measures to monitor or protect residents from these risks. This deficiency was identified based on direct observations and findings during the survey, which indicated lapses in maintaining a safe environment and in providing necessary supervision to prevent accidents.
Failure to Ensure Timely and Accurate Documentation of Narcotic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to ensure professional nursing standards of practice regarding the timely and accurate documentation of narcotic medications for two residents. Multiple instances were identified where Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen tablets were signed out on the narcotic sign-out sheet by registered nurses but were not documented as administered in the medication administration record (MAR) at the same time, or in some cases, not documented at all. There were also discrepancies in the timing of documentation, with one dose not recorded in the MAR until several hours after it was signed out. Additionally, one instance was noted where a narcotic tablet was removed without a time of removal, and the administration was documented by a different nurse at an earlier time than the removal. For another resident, a narcotic tablet that was dropped was not properly documented as wasted, as it lacked a second nurse's signature to verify the destruction of the medication. Interviews with nursing staff and the director of nursing confirmed that the facility's expectation and policy require that narcotic medications be documented in the MAR at the same time they are signed out on the narcotic sign-out sheet, and that any wasted narcotics must be verified by two nurses. Review of the facility's Controlled Substances policy further supported these requirements, stating that the controlled substance sheet and eMAR must match and that proper record keeping is essential. The observed failures in documentation and verification did not align with these established standards and policies.
Neglect Leads to Severe Skin Necrosis and Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from neglect, resulting in severe skin necrosis and significant weight loss. The resident, who had dementia and multiple health conditions including diabetes and chronic kidney disease, was admitted to the hospital with necrotic tissue on both feet. The facility did not adequately monitor or assess the resident's skin condition, despite a previous hospitalization where no skin issues were noted. The first communication with a doctor regarding the necrosis occurred only after the condition had significantly worsened. The resident's family was not informed of the deteriorating condition until it was too late, and they were not included in care plan meetings. The facility's staff failed to perform regular diabetic foot checks and did not document any skin assessments or wound care for the resident's feet between the discovery of the necrosis and the subsequent hospitalization. Additionally, the resident experienced a significant weight loss of over 30 pounds, which was not communicated to the family or addressed in the care plan. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of consistent skin assessments and inadequate communication regarding the resident's condition. The facility's policies on skin assessments and care planning were not followed, contributing to the neglect. The resident's condition ultimately required hospitalization, and the family had to make the difficult decision to place the resident in hospice care due to the severity of the neglect.
Failure to Monitor Dishwasher Sanitization Levels
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to ensure proper monitoring and documentation of the dishwasher temperatures and chemical sanitizer concentration in the facility's main kitchen. During an initial observation, it was noted that the mechanical dishwasher used for cleaning and sanitizing dishes did not have any logs or documentation to verify that the temperature and sanitizing solution were at appropriate levels. The dining services manager (DSM), who had been working at the facility for several years, confirmed that the new low-temperature mechanical dishwasher, which used chemical sanitization, had been in use since November 2024. However, no records were maintained to ensure the sanitization process was effective. Further interviews and record reviews revealed that the previous dishwasher used heat sanitization, and logs were maintained to record temperatures at each meal. These logs indicated that the wash and rinse cycle temperatures met the required standards. However, after switching to the new dishwasher, the facility did not continue logging the wash temperature and sanitization levels. The DSM acknowledged that the dietary staff were not using a form to document these parameters, which could pose a risk of improper sanitization. The facility's policy, as per the 2013 Dish Machine Temperature Log, required dishwashing staff to monitor and record dish machine temperatures to ensure proper sanitization. The administrator confirmed that this policy was still in effect and should have been followed. The manufacturer's manual for the new dishwasher also specified the required temperature and sanitizer levels, which were not being documented. The lack of adherence to these procedures led to the deficiency in ensuring the dishwasher's effectiveness in sanitizing dishes.
Deficiencies in Housekeeping and Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean, safe, and homelike environment for its residents, as evidenced by multiple observations and interviews. The C wing hallways were observed to have a buildup of gray dust and debris along the edges where the carpet met the wall. Several resident rooms were cluttered with personal items, leaving no space for additional belongings, and many beds were unmade. Bathrooms shared by residents had visible dirt, unpleasant odors, and maintenance issues such as peeling wallpaper and missing toilet paper dowels. Additionally, a piece of linoleum flooring was missing in one room, and the flooring had been in disrepair since March 2024. Interviews with residents revealed dissatisfaction with housekeeping services, as rooms were not cleaned thoroughly or regularly. Residents reported that bed linens were not changed on bath days or when soiled, and garbage was not removed regularly. Some residents had to request clean towels and washcloths, which were not provided consistently. The facility's process for managing residents' personal laundry was also inadequate, with frequent reports of lost or misplaced items that were not replaced by the facility. The resident council meetings highlighted ongoing issues with housekeeping and laundry services, despite previous feedback and action plans. Residents expressed that their grievances regarding insufficient cleaning, lack of clean linens, and lost laundry had not been resolved. The facility's policies for routine care by CNAs, including making beds and ensuring rooms were tidy, were not consistently followed, contributing to the deficiencies observed during the survey.
Failure to Implement Pressure Ulcer Prevention Measures
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to implement prescribed and care-planned preventative pressure injury interventions for a resident with a history of skin breakdown on his feet. Observations on multiple occasions revealed that the resident was lying in bed without heel-lift boots, which were part of his care plan and doctor's orders to prevent further skin breakdown. Despite the treatment administration record indicating that the boots were in place, the resident was observed without them, and staff interviews confirmed a lack of awareness and adherence to the care plan. The resident's electronic medical record showed a care plan intervention to offload heels with heel-lift boots initiated months prior, and a doctor's order for heel protection boots was in place. Interviews with staff, including a CNA, RN, and the ADON, revealed a lack of compliance with these orders, as the CNA was unaware of the requirement, and the ADON confirmed the absence of the boots in the resident's room. The DON expressed an expectation for adherence to the care plan and doctor's orders, which was not met, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Implement and Monitor Restorative Program for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to effectively implement, monitor, and document a restorative program for a resident to maintain her mobility. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment and limited physical mobility, was supposed to participate in a restorative therapy program of walking to meals every day. However, observations and interviews revealed that the resident had not walked to meals for a long time and instead used her wheelchair to move around the facility. The certified nursing assistant confirmed that it had been months since the resident last walked to meals. Interviews with staff, including the certified occupational therapist assistant, assistant director of nursing, and MDS coordinator, indicated a lack of communication and follow-up regarding the resident's restorative program. The MDS coordinator acknowledged that the resident's walking program had been missed and expressed a desire for therapy to reassess the resident's current mobility and needs. The facility's restorative program process and person-centered care plan policies were not effectively followed, leading to the deficiency in maintaining the resident's mobility.
Failure to Change Oxygen and Nebulizer Tubing Weekly
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to meet the respiratory needs of a resident by not changing the oxygen tubing and nebulizer tubing weekly as per the facility's policy. During an observation, it was noted that the oxygen tubing and nasal cannula used by the resident were not dated or tagged, and the resident expressed concern that the tubing had not been changed since her hospitalization in January 2025. The resident, who had intact cognition and diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Coronary Artery Disease, and Chronic Respiratory Disease, used oxygen when short of breath and during sleep. However, there was no physician's order for oxygen use, and the resident's care plan and medical records did not document the changing of the oxygen concentrator tubing. Interviews with facility staff, including the ADON, LPN, RN, and DON, revealed a lack of awareness and documentation regarding the resident's oxygen use and the necessary changes to the tubing. The ADON acknowledged that the nursing staff needed to obtain an as-needed order for the resident's oxygen, and the DON was unable to locate an order for oxygen in the electronic medical record. The facility's policy required oxygen tubing and nasal cannula to be changed weekly, with documentation in the TAR, but this was not done. The facility's standing orders indicated the use of oxygen at 4 liters per nasal cannula as needed for oxygen saturation levels below 92%, but the physician was not notified when oxygen was started for the resident.
Latest citations in South Dakota
Failure to Follow EBP and Hand Hygiene Practices: Staff did not wear gowns or gloves, did not perform hand hygiene, and did not clean an EZ stand lift after providing high-contact care to a resident on EBP with a Foley catheter. Staff also provided toileting care to a resident with open stage II pressure ulcers without gowns, and a housekeeper handled resident-room surfaces and items with unclean hands while cleaning rooms. Facility policy required gown and glove use for EBP, cleaning reusable equipment between residents, and hand hygiene after resident contact and glove removal.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, TBI, and dementia with behavioral disturbances used a one-piece jumpsuit identified as a restraint intervention to address genital exposure and related behaviors. The EMR showed consent and physician approval, but the quarterly MDS and care documentation did not show whether the garment remained needed, whether less restrictive alternatives had been tried, or whether restraint reduction or elimination had been considered. Staff interviews confirmed the resident had not worn the garment in a long time, and the DON stated there was no restraint-specific documentation form to track its use or reassess the need for it.
Failure to Follow Ordered Urology Consultation: A resident with urinary retention and a Foley catheter had a physician order for urology referral after a failed trial without catheter, but the consultation was not completed. An LPN knew the resident was supposed to be seen by urology but did not know why it had not happened, and the DON and ADON/IP stated the physician was expected to make the referral and that the status was not discussed in later monthly rounds.
Failure to assess, document, and report new pressure ulcers: A resident with a pelvic fracture and intact cognition developed stage II pressure ulcers on both inner buttocks and a new pressure ulcer on the heel. Staff interviews and record review showed the DON/wound nurse did not document the heel wound or notify the MD, did not notify the MD when the left buttock ulcer was identified, and wound monitoring was not completed daily as required by the facility's own process.
Staff failed to follow a resident’s care-planned transfer needs. The resident had severely impaired cognition, a moderate fall risk score, and required dependent assistance with transfers, including a Hoyer lift with 2 staff or a sit-to-stand lift. Two CNAs lifted her by the underarms and pivoted her instead of using the ordered transfer method, and one CNA stated she did not use a gait belt because the resident was too tiny. The DON acknowledged the transfers were improper and unsafe because staff did not follow the care plan or Kardex.
The facility failed to maintain safe bed systems and prevent accidents, resulting in loose side rails, unsecured or poorly fitted mattresses, and unassessed entrapment zones for multiple residents, including one who was legally blind and had a prior brain bleed after falling from bed. Maintenance logs showed incomplete or inaccurate entrapment audits, with several entrapment zones marked not applicable and some residents with rails omitted from audits, while the DON acknowledged missing side rail assessments, consents, and orders. Additional incidents included a resident with post‑stroke weakness who fell from a bed left at waist height, a resident care planned for two‑person mechanical lift transfers who was transferred by a single CNA using an incorrect sling setup, a cognitively impaired resident at risk for elopement who exited through a door with its alarm deactivated and remained outside briefly in cold weather, and a resident on anticoagulants who fell and hit her head after 11 falls in 30 days without effective revision of fall‑prevention interventions.
Administrator A and the DON did not ensure effective management and oversight of resident care and services, resulting in widespread system failures affecting all 45 residents. Surveyors found deficiencies in resident dignity, informed consent for psychotropic medications, self-administration of meds, honoring meal preferences, responses to resident council concerns, protection of health information, grievance procedures, and handling of abuse allegations. Additional problems included missing or inaccurate MDS and PASSR assessments, lack of timely PASSR refiling for new diagnoses, incomplete or delayed baseline and updated care plans, failure to notify physicians of elevated blood sugars, and unaddressed accident hazards related to bed siderails. The facility also had issues with nebulizer and nasal cannula cleaning and storage, siderail assessments and consents, call light response times, controlled substance accountability, medication errors, and improper storage of drugs and biologicals, despite job descriptions assigning the administrator and DON responsibility for regulatory compliance and quality care.
Staff failed to honor several residents’ stated preferences regarding where they undressed for bathing, affecting their dignity and privacy. One resident reported that a CNA repeatedly undressed him in his room, covered him with a blanket, and transported him through the hallway to the shower room, despite his expressed wish to undress in the shower room. Other residents described similar experiences, stating that the CNA did not ask their preferences and routinely undressed them in their rooms before covering them with a sheet or blanket and taking them to the tub or shower room. Staff interviews confirmed that residents, particularly those requiring a mechanical lift, were typically undressed in their rooms and then transported covered, and the DON stated that facility protocol was to follow resident preference, consistent with the written dignity and privacy policy.
A resident reported that a contracted travel CNA placed hands down his pants while he was in bed, which he described as groping and not part of his usual care routine. Two RNs received this allegation; one counseled the CNA but did not notify leadership and did not know the required reporting time frame, while the other, who knew the 2‑hour reporting requirement, also failed to promptly inform the DON or administrator, delaying notification to state authorities and omitting contact with law enforcement and the ombudsman. In a separate incident, a resident’s family member reported suspected financial abuse to the social services designee, who informed the administrator, but the concern was not reported to the state agency or investigated as an abuse allegation; instead, the family was only given contact information for outside agencies. These actions did not follow the facility’s abuse policy requiring immediate internal reporting, prompt investigation, and timely reporting of all abuse and misappropriation allegations to the state agency.
The facility failed to complete and individualize baseline care plans within 48 hours of admission for several newly admitted residents. Some residents had no baseline care plan in the EMR, while others had plans that were signed but undated or missing key information such as required assistance levels for ADLs, transfer methods, diet orders, use of assistive devices, and ordered rehab therapies. An LPN reported that nurses initiate baseline care plans at admission, and the MDS/RN acknowledged that staff may not know how to provide care if plans are not resident-specific. The regional nurse consultant confirmed that some residents lacked individualized baseline care plans and that the facility likely did not have signed baseline care plans or documentation that copies were provided, despite a policy requiring completion of a comprehensive baseline care plan within 48 hours including physician, dietary, therapy, and social service information.
Failure to Follow EBP, Equipment Cleaning, and Hand Hygiene Practices
Penalty
Summary
Infection prevention and control practices were not followed during care for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) who had a Foley catheter. During a transfer from a wheelchair to a recliner using an EZ stand lift, two CNAs/RMAs did not wear gowns or gloves, did not perform hand hygiene after the transfer, and one CNA/RMA placed the lift outside the resident’s room without cleaning it. One of the CNAs/RMAs stated she was expected to wear a gown and gloves for the transfer and remove them afterward, and the other stated she should have worn a gown and gloves and cleaned the lift after use. A second resident had open stage II pressure ulcers to both buttocks and a new pressure ulcer on the right heel, but was not placed on EBP. During observed toileting assistance, an RN and a CNA wore gloves but did not wear gowns while providing care to the resident’s open buttock wounds. The CNA applied barrier cream to the pressure ulcers and the rest of the buttocks. The RN stated the resident did not need EBP because the wounds did not have drainage, and the ADON/IP stated the resident was not on EBP because the pressure ulcer was not chronic. Housekeeping staff also did not follow hand hygiene practices while cleaning resident rooms. A housekeeper removed a mop head with bare hands, touched door handles without washing hands, and used unclean hands while moving between rooms and handling resident items and bathroom surfaces. The housekeeper stated she was supposed to wash her hands after cleaning a bathroom, after mopping, and between rooms, and the director of food and nutrition/housekeeping and housekeeping supervisor confirmed staff were to wash hands before and after glove use, after bathroom cleaning, and before and after mopping. Facility policy stated EBP required gown and glove use for high-contact care such as transferring and toileting, reusable equipment was to be cleaned and disinfected between residents, and hand hygiene was the primary means to prevent the spread of healthcare-associated infections.
Lack of Documentation for Ongoing Use of One-Piece Garment Restraint
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to document whether one resident who used a one-piece jumpsuit as a restraint intervention was a candidate for restraint reduction, a less restrictive restraint method, or restraint elimination. The resident had severe cognitive impairment, a history of traumatic brain injury, and dementia with behavioral disturbances. He was observed seated in his wheelchair at breakfast and later in his recliner, repeatedly moving his feet, rocking his trunk, and placing his hand in and out of the waistband of his sweatpants. His EMR showed that the jumpsuit had been identified as a restraint intervention and that the resident's spouse had signed informed consent for its use. The record showed the resident had ongoing behaviors involving fondling himself and exposing his genitals, and staff requested physician approval for a one-piece garment to protect his dignity and prevent exposure to others. The physician approved the request. The quarterly MDS indicated the resident used a trunk restraint on a less-than-daily basis, and the MDS nurse's note stated that when available the resident would wear the one-piece jumpsuit. However, that assessment did not include documentation supporting continued use or discontinued use of the garment, and there was no indication that other alternatives had been tried. The behavioral tracking record documented other targeted behaviors, but fondling and exposing his genitals were not identified as targeted behaviors on that assessment. During interviews, an LPN stated the jumpsuit's zipper was on the backside of the garment, restricting the resident's access to his genitals, and said he had not worn it in a long time because of physical and cognitive decline. A CNA also stated she had not seen him wear the garment. The MDS nurse found the jumpsuit hanging in the resident's closet and acknowledged she did not know whether staff had completed restraint-related documentation. The DON stated there was no restraint-specific form to document when the jumpsuit was worn, what precipitated its use, what less restrictive interventions were tried, or how long it was worn, and acknowledged that without such documentation the quarterly assessment could not fully determine whether the jumpsuit remained needed or could be discontinued. The facility's restraint policy required least restrictive use, ongoing reevaluation, and quarterly review for restraint reduction, less restrictive methods, or elimination.
Failure to Follow Ordered Urology Consultation
Penalty
Summary
The nursing facility failed to follow a physician-ordered urology consultation for a resident with urinary retention and a Foley catheter. The resident had been hospitalized for a left femur fracture, and hospital records showed the Foley catheter was removed and later reinserted after a failed trial without catheter. After discharge to the skilled nursing facility, the physician was faxed about discontinuing the Foley catheter and responded to start Alfuzosin for 4 days and then attempt a trial without the catheter. When that trial failed, the physician ordered the Foley restarted and follow-up with urology. Subsequent physician progress notes in February, March, and April documented referral to urology for further evaluation and care, and the resident’s catheter care plan addressed Foley care but did not include a plan for removing the catheter. During interviews, an LPN stated she knew the resident was expected to be seen by a urologist but it had not yet occurred and she was not sure why. The DON and ADON/IP stated the physician was expected to call the urologist to make the referral and that the urology office would then confirm the appointment time. The ADON/IP recalled discussing the urology consultation with the physician during January rounds, but confirmed she did not discuss the status of the consultation during February, March, or April rounds and had no other discussions with the physician about it. The DON acknowledged the failure to follow the January physician-ordered urology consultation was 100% on the facility.
Failure to assess, document, and report new pressure ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to assess, document, and notify the resident's physician of two facility-acquired pressure ulcers for one resident who had returned to the facility from the hospital with a pelvic fracture and weakness and had an intact BIMS score of 15. The resident had a stage II pressure ulcer to the right inner buttock identified on 4/6/26, and later a stage II pressure ulcer to the left inner buttock was identified on 4/27/26. The record showed wound assessments on the right inner buttock, but the report states the wound assessment documentation was not completed weekly as required, and the physician was not notified when the left inner buttock ulcer was identified. The resident was observed sitting in a wheelchair on a Roho pressure-relief cushion and stated she had an open sore on her bottom. Staff interviews confirmed she had pressure ulcers on both inner buttocks, and a CNA reported finding a new pressure ulcer on the resident's right heel that was boggy and dark red and purple in color. An LPN stated the resident had stage II pressure ulcers to both inner buttocks and that the new right heel pressure ulcer had been found the previous day. The DON/wound nurse later stated she was not aware of the right heel pressure ulcer and could not find documentation of it or documentation that the physician had been notified. The record review showed the resident's wound assessments were completed on several dates for the right inner buttock ulcer, with measurements and descriptions documented, and the care plan addressed pressure ulcers to both inner buttocks. However, the DON/wound nurse stated nurses did not monitor pressure ulcers daily and that weekly skin assessments were the routine process. The provider's policy required nurses to document and report pressure ulcers, and the change-in-condition policy required physician notification within 24 hours for a significant change of condition. The DON/wound nurse stated she did not notify the physician when the left inner buttock ulcer was identified and planned to wait until the physician rounded at the facility later.
Unsafe Transfers Not Followed for a Resident With Care-Planned Lift Needs
Penalty
Summary
The nursing home failed to ensure safe transfers for resident 11, who had severely impaired cognition, a moderate fall risk score, and care-planned transfer needs requiring dependent staff assistance. Her revised care plan stated that she usually required a Hoyer lift with staff assist x 2 for transfers when she was not placing her feet on the ground for a pivot transfer with a gait belt and staff assist x 1-2, or a sit-to-stand lift. The resident was observed in the dining room being lifted by CNA F and CNA/RMA E, who each placed an arm beneath her underarms, raised her to standing, pivoted her, and lowered her into her wheelchair. CNA F later transferred the resident from the wheelchair to a recliner in the same manner and stated the resident could not bear her full weight and that she did not use a gait belt because the resident was too tiny. A separate observation showed CNA/RMA G using a sit-to-stand lift to transfer resident 11 from her wheelchair to the toilet and referring to the Kardex to confirm that a mechanical lift was required. The DON/wound nurse stated therapy assessed residents' mobility and transfer needs, those recommendations were added to the care plan, and the care plan information was then transferred to the Kardex so staff would know how to care for the resident. The DON acknowledged that CNA/RMA E and CNA F improperly and unsafely transferred resident 11 by failing to follow the transfer recommendations in the care plan and Kardex.
Failure to Maintain Safe Bed Systems and Prevent Accidents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a safe bed environment free from entrapment hazards and to provide adequate supervision and accident prevention for multiple residents. Surveyors observed that several residents had loose side rails or grab bars and mattresses that were not secured or properly fitted, creating gaps between the rails, mattress, and bedframe. One resident’s bilateral side rails could move away from the bed one to two inches, and there was a five‑inch gap between the top of his mattress and the headboard. Another resident, who was legally blind and had previously fallen out of bed during a dream and sustained a brain bleed, had a left side rail that could move three inches away from the mattress; he reported telling a CNA and his daughter about the loose rail about a week earlier. A third resident used bilateral side rails for bed mobility; her right rail could move two to three inches away from the bed, the openings within the rails measured three and one‑half inches wide by 13 inches high, and there was a seven‑inch gap between the foot of her mattress and the footboard. Surveyors also found that the facility’s entrapment assessments and maintenance audits were incomplete or inaccurately documented. Review of the maintenance logbook for side rail inspections from January through April showed that only zone 1 (the opening within the side rail) was consistently assessed, while the other six FDA‑defined entrapment zones were often marked as not applicable, including zone 7 (the space between the mattress and headboard or footboard) even for residents without bed rails. In some months, all seven zones were documented as not applicable for numerous residents known to have side rails, and some residents with side rails were not included in the audits at all. The DON was unsure if there was a specific entrapment assessment policy and believed maintenance handled these assessments, while also acknowledging missing documentation for side rail assessments, consents, and physician orders, and that some side rails were installed without proper documentation. Additional deficiencies related to accident prevention and supervision were identified in several facility‑reported incidents. One resident with a history of stroke and left‑sided weakness fell from his bed while trying to remove his socks after a CNA left his bed at waist height; his care plan at that time did not specify a required bed height, and he was later diagnosed with a minor closed head injury and abrasions. Another resident, care planned to require two staff for transfers and use of a sit‑to‑stand lift, was transferred by a single contracted CNA using a sling that was too small and the wrong hook, causing back pain; the resident and his family reported that he was often transferred by only one staff member despite the care plan. A cognitively impaired resident at risk for elopement exited through a door whose alarm had been deactivated during daytime hours so visitors could enter and exit, walked outside in very cold weather, and re‑entered through another door after about 15 minutes. A further resident, on anticoagulant therapy, fell while transferring herself to the bathroom and hit her head; she had fallen 11 times in 30 days, and the provider failed to implement, review, and revise interventions to reduce her fall risk. These events collectively demonstrate failures to follow care plans, maintain environmental safety devices such as alarms and bed systems, and provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents. The surveyors determined that these failures, particularly the unsecured side rails and unassessed mattress gaps, created a risk for entrapment injury or harm and issued an Immediate Jeopardy finding under F689 related to accident hazards and supervision. Observations throughout the building confirmed multiple safety concerns with side rail installation, maintenance, and bed zone assessments, including loose rails and significant gaps between mattresses and headboards or footboards. Facility leadership and maintenance staff acknowledged that gaps between mattresses and bed ends and loose side rails posed a risk for entrapment and injury, and that entrapment zone measurements and assessments had not been consistently completed according to FDA guidance and facility policy.
Systemic Administrative and Nursing Leadership Failures Affecting Resident Care and Services
Penalty
Summary
Administrator A and DON B failed to operate and administer the facility in a manner that ensured quality of life and overall well-being for all 45 residents. Surveyors, through observation, interview, record review, policy review, and job description review over multiple days, identified a widespread system breakdown in ensuring that services met professional standards. Deficient areas included resident dignity, informed decision-making for psychotropic medications, resident self-administration of medications, honoring resident meal choices and preferences, responding to resident concerns raised in resident council meetings, protecting resident health information, informing residents how to file grievances, and handling allegations of resident abuse. Additional failures involved obtaining and documenting consent and diagnoses for psychotropic medications, timely reporting of allegations, and providing Ombudsman reports upon discharge. Further findings showed failures in clinical and regulatory processes, including inaccurate MDS assessments and PASSR evaluations, not refiling PASSR when residents had new diagnoses, and not developing resident-specific baseline care plans within 48 hours of admission or updating care plans as needed. The facility did not consistently notify physicians of residents' increased blood sugar levels and did not adequately address accident hazards related to bed side rails. There were issues with nebulizer and nasal cannula cleaning and storage, bed siderail assessments, orders and consent, call light response times, controlled substance accountability, medication errors, and storage of drugs and biologicals. Administrator A confirmed responsibility for daily operations and acknowledged frustration with siderail issues, while job descriptions for both the administrator and DON documented their responsibility for ensuring regulatory compliance and quality care, which was not achieved in these areas.
Failure to Honor Resident Bathing and Undressing Preferences
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to residents’ rights to dignity, respect, and self-determination regarding bathing and undressing practices. One resident reported in a facility reported incident that on his bath days, a CNA undressed him in his room, covered him with a blanket, and transported him through the hallway to the shower room, despite his stated preference to undress in the shower room. During a later interview, this resident stated that the CNA continued this practice, that it made him uncomfortable, and that it happened all the time. The DON stated that the bathing protocol was to follow each resident’s preference for where to undress, and that the CNA had been informed of this resident’s preference. The resident’s care plan documented his need for assistance with dressing but did not include his specific bathing or undressing location preferences. Additional interviews showed that this practice extended to other residents and was not individualized based on resident choice. The CNA acknowledged awareness of the resident’s preference but stated that all residents were undressed in the shower room, while another CNA described a typical routine in which residents with limited mobility who required a mechanical lift were undressed in their rooms, covered with a blanket, and then transported to the shower room. Another resident reported seeing the first resident transported to the shower room covered only by a blanket and stated that the CNA did not ask where he preferred to undress, instead beginning to undress him after announcing it was time for a bath. A third resident stated that the same CNA transferred him from bed to a chair, covered him with a white sheet, and took him to the tub room without asking his preferences, and that he had seen other residents transported in the same manner. These practices conflicted with the facility’s Resident Dignity & Privacy Policy, which required staff to groom and dress residents according to their preferences and to maintain privacy during care.
Failure to Timely Report and Investigate Allegations of Sexual and Financial Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely report and initiate required investigations into two separate allegations of abuse, including sexual and possible financial abuse. One resident reported that at approximately 6:00 a.m. a contracted travel CNA placed hands down his pants while he was in bed, allegedly to check if he was wet, which the resident described as groping that made him feel cheap. The resident stated he typically did not receive nighttime incontinence checks, as he used a urinal and was usually only awakened for early morning blood sugar checks or lab draws. He reported this incident to two RNs, one of whom acknowledged that it was not appropriate for staff to put their hands down a resident’s pants to check incontinence products. Despite this, the nurses who received the allegation did not immediately report it to the DON, administrator, or state agency as required by facility policy and federal guidelines. One RN spoke with the contracted travel CNA to “educate” her but did not notify anyone else and did not know the required reporting time frame. Another RN, who was aware of the process and the two-hour reporting requirement to the state health department, also failed to promptly report the allegation to the DON or administrator, resulting in a delay until late morning before leadership became aware. At the time leadership was notified, the allegation had not yet been investigated, and law enforcement and the ombudsman had not been contacted, even though the allegation involved possible sexual abuse. A second deficiency arose when a resident’s family member reported concerns of suspected financial abuse to the social services designee, who then informed the administrator. Instead of treating this as an abuse allegation requiring reporting and investigation under the facility’s abuse and neglect policy, the administrator did not report it to the state health department, citing a lack of detailed information. The social services designee and administrator only provided the family with contact information for external agencies such as the state’s attorney and adult protective services. The facility’s own policy required that all allegations and suspicions of abuse, including misappropriation of property and exploitation, be immediately reported to the administrator or designee, investigated by the administrator or designee, and reported to the state agency within two hours, but these procedures were not followed for either the sexual abuse allegation or the suspected financial abuse concern.
Failure to Complete and Individualize Baseline Care Plans Within 48 Hours of Admission
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and complete individualized baseline care plans within 48 hours of admission that contained the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for multiple residents, and to ensure these plans were reviewed with and offered to residents or their representatives. Record review showed that one resident admitted on 9/25/25 had a signed baseline care plan that lacked documentation of required assistance levels for transfers, bed mobility, bathing, dressing, toileting, eating, and did not include the physician-ordered diet. Another resident’s baseline care plan, last revised on 1/9/26, was signed but undated and similarly omitted the level of assistance needed for transfers, bed mobility, bathing, dressing, toileting, and eating. A third resident admitted on a specified date had no baseline care plan at all, and a fourth resident’s baseline care plan, uploaded on 12/19/25 and signed but undated, did not indicate how the resident transferred, walked, whether assistive devices were required, or the amount of assistance needed for dressing or toileting. Additional record reviews revealed that another resident admitted on a specified date had no baseline care plan in the EMR, and a further resident’s baseline care plan dated 4/5/26 did not specify how she transferred between surfaces, her diet, or the specific physician-ordered rehabilitation therapies. Interviews with the regional nurse consultant confirmed that two residents did not have individualized baseline care plans completed and that the facility likely did not have signed baseline care plans or documentation that copies were provided to residents or their representatives. An LPN stated that nurses initiate baseline care plans during admission and that all nurses and leadership can update them, and the MDS/RN acknowledged that staff may not know how to provide care if care plans are not resident-specific and completed, and confirmed that two residents’ baseline care plans, although reviewed with their representatives, were not personalized with specific care information. Policy review showed that the facility’s care plan policy required baseline care plans to be started on the first day of admission, completed within 48 hours, and to include minimum healthcare information such as initial goals, physician orders, dietary orders, therapy services, social services, and PASARR recommendations, which was not consistently done.
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.
