August Healthcare At Iliff
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Dunn Loring, Virginia.
- Location
- 8000 Iliff Drive, Dunn Loring, Virginia 22027
- CMS Provider Number
- 495205
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- April 7, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 4
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at August Healthcare At Iliff during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Staff failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for a resident who was completely dependent for ADLs, incontinent, vegetative, ventilator-dependent, and admitted with an existing sacral/coccyx pressure area documented as skin maceration. Multiple admitting skin assessments recorded the sacral impairment, and a later weekly skin review described an unstageable sacral pressure ulcer with necrosis and slough, yet no physician treatment orders or comprehensive care plan addressing the wound were in place until several days after admission. In interviews, the RN and DON acknowledged that the wound was believed to be a hospital-acquired deep tissue injury present on admission, and the DON could not explain why treatment orders or a care plan were not initiated upon admission.
Staff failed to obtain and initiate timely treatment orders and a baseline care plan for a dependent, vegetative resident admitted with a known sacral/coccyx pressure area. Admission and subsequent skin assessments documented a sacral maceration and later an unstageable pressure ulcer with necrosis and slough, yet no wound treatment orders were in place for the first five days after admission, despite facility policies requiring skin assessments and treatments as needed. Wound care orders, including a wound-healing supplement, weekly skin checks, and sacral cleansing and dressings, were only started later, after the ulcer was already documented as unstageable.
Staff failed to follow professional standards for medication administration and documentation for a resident receiving a Rivastigmine transdermal patch for dementia. Review of MARs showed unclear and conflicting removal times for the 24‑hour patch and inconsistent adherence to the physician’s bedtime order, with two different removal times documented on both the March and April records. In addition, staff did not document the anatomical sites where patches were applied, despite the DON stating that documenting patch sites was important. During a med pass observation, interviewed LPNs affirmed the importance of following physician orders, yet the MAR entries did not clearly demonstrate compliance with those orders or with accepted standards for transdermal patch use.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, chronic heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension did not receive multiple ordered medications over several days because they were repeatedly documented by nursing staff as not available or awaiting pharmacy delivery. The missing drugs included rivastigmine patch, amantadine ER, DDAVP nasal solution, clobetasol foam, amiodarone, ergocalciferol, and Rytary, all with valid physician orders. An LPN stated medications should be available by the day after admission, and the DON reported that pharmacy delivered twice daily and that new admission medications should be available by the next day, yet documentation continued to show unavailability. A pharmacy manifest showed one medication had been delivered despite being charted as unavailable, and a Pixus review confirmed the cited medications were not stocked there, demonstrating a failure to ensure timely availability of ordered medications.
Failure to Develop Timely Baseline Care Plan for Existing Sacral Wound
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission to address an existing skin impairment for one resident. The resident was admitted with multiple serious diagnoses, including post-infectious viral encephalitis and encephalomyelitis, acute cerebral edema, intracranial space-occupying lesion, persistent vegetative state, ventilator dependence, and an unstageable coccyx/sacral pressure sore. The admission MDS documented the resident as completely dependent on 1–2 staff for all ADLs, incontinent of bowel and bladder, and vegetative with no response to verbal or physical stimuli. On the first admitting daily skin assessment, staff documented an existing sacral pressure ulcer and noted that what had been referred to as a healed stage 2 on the sacrum was actually mild skin maceration, measuring 5 cm by 6 cm with no depth. Subsequent admitting daily skin assessments on the following days continued to document skin maceration in the coccyx/sacrum area. Despite these documented findings, there were no physician treatment orders for the pressure area from admission until several days later, and the comprehensive care plan addressing the wound was not initiated until after treatment orders were obtained. A weekly skin review documented an open area on the sacrum, an unstageable pressure ulcer with moderate necrosis and slough tissue, measuring 5 cm by 8 cm, with low air loss mattress in use and no change in treatment. During interviews, the Pediatric Director RN stated that the physician believed the pressure sore was hospital-acquired and just beginning to break down on admission, and the DON stated that everyone knew the wound was a deep tissue injury that occurred in the hospital. When asked why treatment orders or a care plan were not obtained or instituted upon admission if this was known, the DON responded, "I don't know." The facility acknowledged the findings and had no further information to present at the time of exit.
Failure to Initiate Timely Treatment for Admitted Sacral Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to provide timely treatment and baseline care planning for a known pressure area on the sacrum of one resident during the admission period. The resident was admitted with multiple serious diagnoses, including post-infectious acute viral encephalitis and encephalomyelitis, acute cerebral edema, intracranial space-occupying lesion, persistent vegetative state, ventilator dependence, and an unstageable coccyx/sacral pressure sore. The admission MDS documented the resident as completely dependent on 1–2 staff for all ADLs, incontinent of bowel and bladder, and vegetative with no response to stimuli. Daily admitting skin assessments beginning on 12-30-24 documented an existing sacral/coccyx pressure area described as skin maceration measuring 5 cm by 6 cm with no depth, and later as skin maceration of the sacrum, but no physician treatment orders were obtained from admission through 1-3-25. Despite the presence of wound evaluation documents and recognition by staff and physician that there was a pressure area present on admission, no wound treatment orders were in place or implemented for the first five days. On 1-4-25, staff obtained and initiated new physician orders for wound care and related interventions, including a dietary supplement for wound healing twice daily, weekly skin checks, and cleansing and dressing of the sacral wound with hydrofera and a dry dressing. A weekly skin review on 1-9-25 documented an open area on the sacrum with hydrofera in progress, describing the pressure ulcer as unstageable with moderate necrosis and slough tissue, measuring 5 cm by 8 cm, with no tunneling or signs of infection and no change in treatment. Interviews with the Pediatric Director RN and the DON confirmed that staff believed the wound to be a deep tissue injury acquired in the hospital and present on admission, yet the DON could not explain why treatment orders and a care plan were not obtained and initiated upon admission. Facility policies required weekly skin assessments and obtaining treatments as needed, but the record showed that no treatment orders for the pressure ulcer were obtained or started during the initial five-day period after admission.
Failure to Follow Professional Standards for Transdermal Patch Administration and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure professional standards of quality in medication administration for one cognitively intact resident with multiple chronic conditions, including Parkinson's disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, chronic heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension. Review of the closed electronic clinical record and the March and April 2025 Medication Administration Records (MARs) showed that medications were not administered as ordered by the physician. Specifically, the Rivastigmine 9.5 mg/24 hr transdermal patch, ordered to be applied at bedtime for dementia and removed per schedule, had unclear and inconsistent removal times documented. The March MAR showed an order start date of 3/15/2025 and discontinue date of 3/27/2025, with entries to remove the patch at both 1:18 p.m. and 7:59 p.m., and to apply the patch at 8:00 p.m. The April MAR similarly listed two removal times, 2:33 p.m. and 7:59 p.m., with application at 8:00 p.m. The MARs also lacked documentation of the anatomical sites where the Rivastigmine patches were applied, despite the DON acknowledging that documenting patch sites was important so staff would know where patches had been placed. During medication pass observations, interviewed LPNs stated it was important for nurses to administer medications and follow physician orders, yet the MAR documentation did not clearly reflect adherence to those orders or to professional standards for transdermal patch use. Reference materials cited in the report, including Lippincott Nursing Procedures and external guidance on transdermal patches, emphasized the need to follow physician orders, facility policies, and proper documentation, as well as the importance of rotating patch sites, underscoring the deficiencies identified in the resident’s medication administration records.
Failure to Ensure Availability of Ordered Medications for a New Admission
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure ordered medications were available for administration to a resident, as required under pharmaceutical services. The affected resident was an older adult admitted with multiple diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, chronic heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension, and had no cognitive impairment per a recent MDS, requiring assistance with ADLs. Review of the closed electronic clinical record and nurses’ notes showed repeated documentation that several ordered medications were not available for administration on multiple consecutive days (3/15/2025, 3/16/2025, and 3/17/2025). These medications included, but were not limited to, rivastigmine patch, amantadine ER, DDAVP nasal solution, clobetasol foam, amiodarone, ergocalciferol, and Rytary, all of which had valid physician orders. Nursing documentation repeatedly indicated that medications were “not available” or “awaiting pharmacy delivery” over several medication administration times, including bedtime and scheduled daily doses. Some medications listed as unavailable on 3/15/2025 and 3/16/2025 continued to be documented as unavailable on 3/17/2025. Interview with an LPN confirmed that medications should be available for administration and that nurses should try to obtain medications by the day after admission. The DON stated that medications were expected to be available as ordered, that the pharmacy had two scheduled daily deliveries, and that new admission medications should be available by the next day, but acknowledged that a rivastigmine patch documented as unavailable had in fact been delivered earlier that day per the pharmacy manifest. Review of the Pixus inventory showed none of the cited medications were available there. During the end-of-day debriefing, facility leadership acknowledged that medications should be available for administration as ordered.
Latest citations in Virginia
Staff failed to remove alleged perpetrators from duty and fully investigate verbal abuse during two separate abuse allegations involving a resident and two CNAs. In the first event, a resident reported being intentionally pushed into a siderail during in-bed care, while multiple other residents described the same CNA as rough and having a bad attitude; despite this, the CNA completed the shift and worked additional days while the abuse investigation was open. In the second event, the same resident alleged that another CNA pushed his leg and made a profane, threatening statement, but the facility’s investigation did not address the verbal abuse allegation, and that CNA was also allowed to finish the shift and work subsequent days during the investigation. Timecard records and interviews with the administrator and DON confirmed that alleged perpetrators continued working with unrestricted access to residents while abuse allegations were under investigation, leading surveyors to identify immediate jeopardy and substandard quality of care.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and limited English proficiency sustained bilateral wrist discoloration and swelling during ADL care provided by a CNA while resisting care. Staff documentation and witness statements described the resident bumping or hitting her wrists on a wheelchair during transfer, but the CNA later stated he did not know how the injury occurred. The resident’s family reported that the resident said a large male staff member grabbed and held her hands while trying to force a nightgown change, and also reported a second, similar wrist injury incident to facility staff and APS. Despite a written abuse policy requiring immediate investigation, interviews of the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, and witnesses, and protective measures, the facility did not report the incident as abuse or injury of unknown origin, did not interview the resident or other residents, and limited its inquiry to two staff members, resulting in a cited Immediate Jeopardy deficiency for failure to prevent and investigate potential abuse.
A resident received an incorrect higher dose of Divalproex DR after the pharmacy dispensed 500 mg tablets labeled to be given multiple times daily, which did not match the physician’s order for 250 mg tablets. Nursing staff did not detect the discrepancy between the MAR and the medication card despite facility policy and expectations to verify the right dose and ensure orders matched dispensed medications. Over time, the resident developed weakness and altered mental status, was sent to the hospital at the family’s request, and was found to have an elevated valproic acid level, with hospital documentation indicating motor weakness was possibly medication-induced.
A resident with an order for Divalproex DR 250 mg, two tablets in the morning and three at bedtime, was instead given 500 mg tablets over an extended period after the contracted pharmacy dispensed the wrong strength. The MAR continued to reflect the 250 mg order and was signed daily as given, while nurses did not detect that the medication cards contained a different strength than the physician’s order. The resident later developed altered mental status and was sent to the ER, and a NP documented that the resident had been receiving the incorrect Divalproex dose. Staff interviews and facility policy confirmed that nurses were expected to verify the right dose by comparing the medication label to the MAR and order, but this verification process failed in this case.
A resident with chronic pain from degenerative disc disease and avascular necrosis experienced repeated episodes of uncontrolled pain, with scores up to 10/10, despite ongoing adjustments to analgesic medications. The care plan focused on pharmacologic interventions and monitoring but did not include any non-pharmacological pain management strategies, even as pain remained only partially controlled. Staff interviews revealed that some staff avoided the resident due to perceived rude behavior, the resident frequently refused care and appointments because of pain, and the resident requested increased narcotics and medical marijuana. The MDS coordinator stated that ineffective interventions should be revised, yet the care plan was not updated to add alternative or non-pharmacologic approaches, contrary to the facility’s own pain management policy requiring care consistent with professional standards and resident goals and preferences.
The facility failed to implement its abuse policy when a resident made multiple abuse allegations against two CNAs. Although the administrator, acting as Abuse Coordinator, stated that policy required immediate reporting, investigation, and removal of alleged perpetrators from duty, facility records showed both CNAs continued to work their scheduled shifts during the investigation periods. Additionally, an allegation of verbal abuse by the same resident was not investigated. Review of the abuse policy confirmed the requirement for reporting, investigation, and oversight to ensure policies are followed, but these measures were not carried out, compromising resident protection during the investigation of abuse allegations.
The facility failed to follow its abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy by not ensuring that a CNA completed required annual abuse-prevention and related trainings. Although the CNA reported being current on all yearly training, a review of her transcript showed that assigned courses on cultural competence, abuse/neglect/exploitation, and abuse/neglect/exploitation with HIPAA content were overdue past their required completion date. The administrator confirmed that these were mandatory annual trainings. Review of the written policy showed that existing staff must receive annual education on preventing, identifying, recognizing, and reporting abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, as well as on resident behaviors that may increase risk, but this requirement was not met for this CNA.
A cognitively intact resident with extensive neurologic and musculoskeletal conditions, including post-stroke hemiparesis, neuropathic pain, hip avascular necrosis, and chronic back pain, was highly dependent on staff for ADLs and refused ADL care almost daily, frequently citing pain as the reason. The ADL care plan contained only a single generic intervention for assistance as needed and was not revised to add individualized, measurable interventions despite persistent refusals. A behavior care plan documented refusals of medications, showers, turning/repositioning, meals, and other care, but interventions were limited to medication administration, monitoring, behavior discussion, and psych evaluation, without specific strategies to address care refusals related to pain. A physician order for additional pain medication prior to showers was present in the record but was never incorporated into the comprehensive care plan, contrary to facility policy requiring person-centered care plans that reflect identified needs, new orders, and alternative interventions when residents refuse treatment.
Facility staff did not ensure timely completion and implementation of pharmacy medication regimen review recommendations for a resident. The DON reported that the pharmacy coordinator notifies her when reviews are ready, she forwards them to the physician for signature, and then to unit managers for implementation, with copies kept in a binder and originals scanned into the chart. Review of one resident’s record showed repeated delays of several weeks between pharmacist recommendations for gradual dose reductions of quetiapine, duloxetine, and pantoprazole, as well as completion of an AIMS assessment, and the physician’s review and signature, contrary to the facility’s medication regimen review policy.
A resident with a left calf hematoma and a right pinky finger fracture did not consistently receive care according to provider orders and documented hospital recommendations. Daily ordered wound care to the left calf was not documented as completed on several days, including when the resident was out for appointments and on one day with no documentation at all. Although hospital and provider notes referenced a splinted right pinky finger fracture and the need for follow-up, there were no specific provider orders, TAR entries, or care plan interventions in the facility record addressing treatment, care, or follow-up for the fracture.
Failure to Remove Alleged Abusers and Investigate Verbal Abuse During Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to protect residents during investigations of two separate abuse allegations made by one resident against two CNAs and failed to investigate an allegation of verbal abuse. In the first incident, the resident alleged that a CNA pushed him over "so the fuxx hard" while cleaning him on the evening shift that his head hit the siderail and that it was done on purpose. The resident contacted 911 the evening of the incident and police responded to the facility, indicating staff were aware of the allegation that same evening. The DON assessed the resident with no injury noted. Staff interviews documented that the resident became verbally and physically abusive during care, scratched staff, and that his head "tapped" the rail but not hard or on purpose. The resident, however, told another CNA that the aide had rolled him too hard, his eye hit the rail, and his legs came out of the bed, and he repeated similar details to the DON, stating the aide came in with an attitude and rolled him extra hard. As part of the facility’s internal investigation of the first incident, 12 residents were interviewed about the CNA’s care. Several residents reported that the CNA was rough, pulled them over hard, almost threw them on the floor when turning them in bed, had a bad attitude, and one resident did not want the CNA in her room. Despite these concerns and the resident’s allegation of being intentionally pushed, the CNA was allowed to complete her shift and to work subsequent scheduled shifts while the investigation was ongoing. Timecard records showed that the CNA worked the night of the incident and additional shifts on the following days and was paid for those hours. Although a suspension notice was later dated and an involuntary termination recorded, the contemporaneous documentation and time records demonstrated that the CNA remained in the building and had access to residents during the open abuse investigation. In the second incident, the same resident alleged that another CNA verbally and physically abused him during ADL care. The resident reported that the CNA pushed his leg down harder and stated, "I want to fuck with you now," and he called 911 to report that a staff member pushed his leg. Four staff members present in the room provided statements that no one harmed him, describing that his leg was lifted to remove a pillow and dirty sheets and then set down softly, after which he began yelling, accusing the CNA of cracking his leg and hip, cursing staff, and digging his fingernails into a staff member’s arm. Police interviewed staff and concluded that no harm was done to the resident. The facility’s investigation included resident safety interviews, one of which noted a resident did not feel safe on certain shifts due to staff. However, the verbal abuse allegation (the reported statement "I want to fuck with you now") was not addressed in the facility’s investigation, and the CNA involved was allowed to complete her shift and work additional scheduled days while the investigation was in progress. The administrator later acknowledged that she did not instruct the CNA to go home and that everyone "stayed kinda together" during the investigation. These actions and inactions resulted in surveyors identifying immediate jeopardy and substandard quality of care due to residents not being protected from alleged perpetrators during abuse investigations.
Failure to Implement Abuse Policy and Investigate Resident Wrist Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its abuse policy and to ensure a resident’s safety following an injury sustained during ADL care by a CNA, and the failure to investigate to rule out abuse. The resident, identified as R94, was admitted with diagnoses including altered mental status and had a BIMS score of 11/15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Her preferred language was Korean. Her care plan, initiated months before the incident, addressed discoloration but was not updated after she sustained injuries to her wrist on 03/20/25. The facility did not report the incident to the state survey agency, and the CEO confirmed there was no investigation for the 03/20/25 incident, only a grievance form. On 03/20/25, an incident report documented that CNA2 informed RN1 that the resident developed discoloration and swelling of both wrists during ADL care when changing clothes, while the resident was resisting care. The report stated that the resident bumped her wrists against the wheelchair during transfer, and that CNA2 was removed from the assignment and educated to stop providing care if a resident resists. Employee witness statements from RN1 and CNA2 described the resident resisting care and bumping or hitting her wrists on the wheelchair, with RN1 noting that the resident was unable to communicate coherent English when questioned. CNA3’s statement only indicated that she was asked to assist, found the resident agitated, and that the nurse assessed and notified others. A nurse’s note by RN1 documented bilateral wrist discoloration and swelling after an “accident” during clothes changing while the resident was resisting, and that ice was applied. In a later interview, CNA2 stated he attempted to transfer the resident from the wheelchair to bed after toileting, that she resisted by lifting her arms, and that he did not know how the injury occurred. He confirmed the injury was not present before he attempted the transfer and that he remained assigned to the resident for the rest of the shift. The resident’s family member reported that the resident, who did not speak English, told her that during the 03/20/25 incident she refused to be changed into a nightgown and staff grabbed her hand and tried to force her, describing the staff as a big Black man. The family member also reported a second, similar wrist injury incident with a big Black male staff member and stated she reported these to facility staff and APS. The Social Service Director acknowledged that she did not interview the resident or other residents or complete a trauma assessment regarding the 03/20/25 allegation, despite stating that such steps were part of the usual abuse investigation process. The Administrator, who was the DON at the time, stated that the incident was not reported as abuse or injury of unknown origin because CNA2 self-reported that the injury occurred during care and denied abuse, and that only CNA2 and RN1 were interviewed. This was inconsistent with the facility’s written abuse policy, which required immediate investigation, interviews of all involved persons including the alleged victim and witnesses, and measures to protect residents from harm during and after the investigation. The facility’s abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy required an immediate investigation when there was suspicion or reports of abuse, including identifying and interviewing the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others with knowledge, and ensuring residents were protected from physical and psychosocial harm during and after the investigation. Examples in the policy included responding immediately to protect the alleged victim, examining the alleged victim for signs of injury, and making room or staffing changes if necessary to protect residents from the alleged perpetrator. Despite this, the Social Service Director did not conduct resident or collateral interviews or trauma assessments, and the Administrator confirmed that the facility limited its inquiry to CNA2 and RN1 and did not treat the event as an injury of unknown origin or an abuse allegation. The failure to follow these procedures and to ensure the resident’s protection and a thorough investigation led to the cited deficiency under 42 CFR §483.12 Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, with Immediate Jeopardy identified at a scope and severity level J.
Significant Medication Error From Incorrect Divalproex Dose
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was free from significant medication errors, specifically related to incorrect dosing of Divalproex DR. Clinical record review showed that the resident was being seen repeatedly by advanced practice providers in June for muscle weakness and weakness. A nurse practitioner documented on 6/23/25 that the resident’s weakness was found to be due to an incorrect medication dose being dispensed, noting a 500 mg dose instead of the ordered 250 mg. The physician’s order specified Divalproex DR 250 mg tablets, but the medication dispensed and administered was Divalproex DR 500 mg. Pharmacy records and interviews confirmed that on 5/18/25, the pharmacy dispensed 150 tablets of Divalproex DR 500 mg with a label instructing staff to give two tablets in the morning and three at bedtime, which did not match the physician’s order for 250 mg tablets. Nursing staff interviews indicated that nurses were expected to follow the facility’s medication administration policy, including verifying the right resident, right medication, right dose, and ensuring the medication card matched the MAR. The DON and multiple LPNs stated that if the pharmacy sent the wrong medication or if the milligrams did not match the MAR, nurses were expected to identify and correct the discrepancy, but this did not occur in this case. On 6/20/25, the resident was assessed by an LPN who initially stated she did not observe changes in condition, but her documentation reflected that the resident had altered mental status, and the resident’s mother requested hospital transfer. At the hospital, the discharge summary indicated that the resident’s motor weakness was possibly medication-induced, and lab results showed a valproic acid level of 115, above the normal range of 50–100. A physician assistant interviewed later confirmed that increased doses of Divalproex DR can cause drowsiness, muscle weakness, skin reactions, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting. These findings collectively demonstrate that the resident received an incorrect, higher dose of Divalproex DR over time, constituting a significant medication error that resulted in harm.
Prolonged Administration of Incorrect Divalproex Dose Due to Pharmacy and Nursing Verification Failures
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure medications were administered according to professional standards of nursing practice for one resident. The resident had a physician’s order for Divalproex DR 250 mg, to be given as two tablets in the morning and three tablets at bedtime. Review of the MAR for May and June 2025 showed that this ordered regimen was documented as being administered daily. However, the resident’s clinical record and subsequent review revealed that the resident was actually receiving Divalproex DR 500 mg tablets instead of the ordered 250 mg tablets, resulting in administration of an incorrect dose over an extended period. On 6/20/25, the resident experienced a change in condition characterized by altered mental status, and the resident’s mother reported that the resident’s mental status and demeanor were off and requested transfer to the ER for evaluation. A nurse practitioner’s progress note dated 6/23/25, following the resident’s hospitalization, documented that the resident had been receiving the incorrect dose of Divalproex DR, specifically 500 mg daily instead of the 250 mg dose prescribed by the physician. There was no physician order in the medical record authorizing a change to Divalproex DR 500 mg. Interviews and documentation showed that the contracted pharmacy dispensed Divalproex DR 500 mg tablets on 5/18/25 instead of the ordered 250 mg strength, and that nursing staff continued to administer and sign off the medication on the MAR without identifying the discrepancy between the medication card and the physician’s order. The facility’s own medication administration policy and staff interviews indicated that nurses were expected to compare the medication label to the MAR and physician’s order, verify the right dose, and correct any mismatch, but this did not occur in this case. As a result, the resident received the wrong dose of Divalproex DR for a prolonged period before the error was identified.
Failure to Provide Effective, Multimodal Pain Management
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure effective pain management for a resident with chronic pain syndrome related to degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and avascular necrosis of the left hip. The resident’s care plan identified bilateral hip pain and neuropathic pain, with goals for the resident to verbalize relief of pain, cope with and complete activities with pain relief, and remain free from interruption in normal activities due to pain. Interventions in the care plan focused on administering analgesics as ordered, anticipating the resident’s need for pain relief, responding promptly to complaints of pain, and evaluating the effectiveness of pain interventions, including reviewing compliance, symptom alleviation, dosing schedules, resident satisfaction, and impact on function and cognition. However, the care plan, initiated in April 2024 and last revised in December 2025, did not include any non-pharmacological interventions to assist with alleviating the resident’s pain. Clinical record review showed multiple episodes of uncontrolled pain despite ongoing pharmacologic management. A nursing note documented that staff were called to the resident’s room for increased, uncontrolled pain with a reported pain score of 10/10, and the physician assistant provided a one-time order for hydrocodone/acetaminophen 10-325 mg. Subsequent progress notes indicated chronic pain syndrome with ongoing symptom review and pain described as only partially controlled, with continued reports of uncontrolled pain and pain ratings up to 10/10. Although analgesic dosages were adjusted over time, there was no evidence in the record that non-pharmacological or alternative pain management approaches were implemented or documented to help alleviate the resident’s pain. Staff interviews further illustrated issues with the resident’s pain management and staff response. An LPN reported that the resident was sometimes rude and disrespectful, and stated that staff ignored and avoided the resident’s room because of how he spoke to people. The assistant DON reported that the resident refused care daily due to pain, screamed out when his left leg was moved, and declined care, assistance, and appointments because of pain, while also requesting increased pain medication dosages and medical marijuana. The MDS coordinator explained that care plans should be updated with changes in condition or ineffective interventions, and that interventions should be changed if not effective, but there was no indication that non-pharmacological interventions were added to the care plan despite ongoing uncontrolled pain. The facility’s own pain management policy required pain management consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident’s goals and preferences, but documentation and interviews showed that non-pharmacological pain interventions were not developed or implemented for this resident.
Failure to Implement Abuse Policy and Protect Residents During Abuse Investigations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility administrator, who also served as the Abuse Coordinator, failing to effectively implement the facility’s abuse policy when allegations of abuse and neglect were made by Resident #1 on two separate occasions involving two different CNAs. Facility documentation and staff interviews showed that, despite the administrator’s statement that the policy required immediate reporting to state agencies, initiation of an investigation, and removal and suspension of the alleged perpetrator from the facility during the investigation, the alleged perpetrators were not removed from duty. In the first incident, involving CNA1, timecard records showed that CNA1 completed the shift on the day of the incident and continued to work subsequent shifts during the investigation period. In the second incident, involving CNA2, timecard records showed that CNA2 completed the scheduled shift on the day of the incident and continued to work multiple scheduled shifts afterward while the allegation was under investigation. The report further notes that Resident #1 also made an allegation of verbal abuse that was not investigated by the facility. Review of the facility’s “Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation” policy indicated that the facility would designate an Abuse Coordinator responsible for reporting suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the state survey agency and other officials, and that the facility would provide ongoing oversight and supervision of staff to ensure policies were implemented as written. The failure of the Abuse Coordinator to remove the alleged perpetrators from the facility during the investigations and to investigate the verbal abuse allegation did not ensure the safety and protection of Resident #1 and other residents from potential abuse, as stated in the findings.
Failure to Ensure Completion of Required Annual Abuse-Prevention Training
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy by not ensuring that one CNA received required annual abuse-related training. During an interview, CNA #3 stated that she was current on all required yearly training. However, a review of her annual training transcript showed that multiple assigned trainings, including "Cultural Competence Inservice," "Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation," and "Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation HIPAA for Long-Term Care Employees," were overdue. These trainings had been assigned on February 2, 2026, with a completion due date of February 28, 2026, but remained incomplete as of the survey date. The administrator confirmed that the records reviewed were the yearly training records and stated that employees were required to complete these courses annually and by the due date. A review of the facility’s written policy titled "Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation" showed that new employees must be educated on abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property during orientation, and existing staff must receive annual education through planned in-services and as needed. The policy specified that training topics must include prohibiting and preventing all forms of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation; identifying and recognizing signs and indicators of these issues; and understanding reporting processes and resident behavioral symptoms that may increase risk. In a meeting with the DON, administrator, and regional director of clinical services, the DON stated she was a new hire and that the training should have been completed, and no additional information was provided.
Failure to Update Comprehensive, Person-Centered Care Plan for Ongoing ADL Refusals
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to develop and maintain a complete, person-centered comprehensive care plan with measurable interventions for a resident who was cognitively intact but highly dependent on staff for ADLs. The resident had multiple significant diagnoses, including history of stroke with residual left-sided hemiparesis, neuropathic pain, left hip avascular necrosis, degenerative disc disease with chronic lower back pain, adult failure to thrive, and lower extremity weakness. An ADL care plan initiated on 4/10/2024, with a revision date of 9/29/2025, contained only a single generic intervention stating that the resident would receive ADL assistance as needed, with no additional or revised interventions added despite ongoing issues. Clinical record review showed that the resident refused ADL care almost daily and frequently cited pain as the reason for refusal, yet the ADL care plan was not updated to reflect these refusals or to include individualized strategies to address them. The resident also had a behavior care plan initiated on 3/22/2024 and revised on 1/20/2026, which identified refusal of medications, weights, showers, turning and repositioning, appointments, meals, bed linen changes, and getting up in a chair, as well as use of foul and abusive language toward staff. Interventions on this behavior care plan were limited to administering medications as ordered and monitoring for side effects and effectiveness, discussing behaviors with the resident when reasonable, and evaluation by a psych provider. The care plan did not include personalized interventions specifically addressing the resident’s refusal of care or the underlying pain contributing to those refusals. A physician’s order dated 12/5/2025 directed staff to administer additional pain medication one hour prior to showering on shower days, but this order was not incorporated into the comprehensive care plan. Interviews with the ADON and MDS coordinator confirmed that the resident refused care daily and that care plans were expected to be updated with new orders and changes, yet the comprehensive care plan was not revised to include these person-centered, measurable interventions as required by facility policy.
Delayed Implementation of Pharmacy Medication Regimen Review Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure that monthly medication regimen reviews by the consultant pharmacist were completed and implemented in a timely manner for one resident in the survey sample. The DON described the facility’s process, stating that the pharmacy coordinator notifies her when reviews are ready, she then reviews them and forwards them to the physician for review and signature, and once signed, she gives them to unit managers to ensure recommendations are implemented. The DON also stated she keeps copies of all reviews in a binder in her office and sends the originals to medical records to be scanned into the resident’s chart. The facility’s policy, titled “Medication Regimen Review,” states that each resident’s drug regimen is reviewed at least monthly by a licensed pharmacist and includes a review of the resident’s medical chart. Record review for one resident showed multiple delays between the pharmacist’s recommendations and physician review/signature. A pharmacy review dated 2/18/25 recommended a gradual dose reduction of the antipsychotic quetiapine from 100 mg to 75 mg, but this was not reviewed and signed by the physician until 3/25/25. On 2/18/25, a recommendation for a current AIMS assessment was made and was not signed and completed until 3/27/25. On 7/29/25, a recommendation for a gradual dose reduction of the antidepressant duloxetine 60 mg twice daily was not addressed by the physician until 9/5/25. On 11/26/25, a recommendation to reduce pantoprazole from 40 mg daily to 20 mg was not reviewed and signed by the physician until 12/24/25. These findings demonstrate that pharmacy regimen review recommendations for this resident were not acted upon in a timely manner, contrary to facility policy.
Failure to Follow Wound Care Orders and Obtain Treatment Orders for Finger Fracture
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to follow provider orders for wound care to a resident’s left calf hematoma and did not ensure the ordered daily dressing changes were completed. The resident had a history of a fall prior to admission and diagnoses including contusion of the lower leg, Parkinson’s disease, and muscle weakness. The comprehensive care plan identified impaired skin integrity of the left lower leg related to a hematoma with an intervention to provide treatment as ordered. Provider orders directed staff to cleanse the outer left calf with dermal wound cleanser and apply Xeroform, ABD pad, and Kerlix daily. Review of the treatment administration record showed that on multiple days staff either documented the resident as out of the facility for appointments or left the administration block blank, with no documentation that the treatment was completed before or after the appointments and no documentation at all for one of the ordered treatment days. Facility staff also failed to obtain and implement provider orders for care and treatment of the same resident’s right pinky finger fracture. The resident’s diagnoses included a finger fracture, and the MDS coded an active diagnosis of “other fracture.” Hospital documentation noted a right finger fracture treated with a splint and recommended orthopedic follow-up after discharge. A provider progress note at the facility referenced the fracture and stated to continue supportive care, and a skilled nursing note documented that a splint to the right pinky finger was in place. However, there were no corresponding provider orders in the facility record for treatment, care, or follow-up of the fractured finger, and the treatment administration record contained no entries for fracture care. Further review of the comprehensive care plan revealed no focus area, goals, or interventions addressing the resident’s right pinky finger fracture. Interviews with the medical provider, wound care nurse, interim DON, and unit manager confirmed that there was no clear treatment plan or documented orders for the fracture, and staff described that their usual protocol would be to notify the provider and obtain specific orders or clarify orthopedic recommendations. Several nurses who had provided care to the resident were no longer employed and unavailable for interview, and no additional documentation or policies beyond general requirements to provide treatments as ordered and obtain admission physician’s orders were produced to show that appropriate fracture care orders had been obtained or implemented.
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.
