Citations in Virginia
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Virginia.
Statistics for Virginia (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Compliance trends in Virginia
Data through Mar 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 against the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
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.
Some of the Latest Corrective Actions taken by Facilities in Virginia
- Implemented mandatory abuse-policy education for all facility and agency staff (including abuse prevention, types of abuse, and abuse reporting), required completion before returning to work/starting a shift, and added abuse-policy training to new-hire orientation (J - F0600 - VA)
- Implemented leadership reeducation on behavioral-risk management (assessing triggers/root causes/escalation patterns and developing sustained supervision and separation interventions for residents with behavioral disturbances) (J - F0600 - VA)
- Implemented ongoing screening and care-plan review processes for resident behavioral risks by reviewing Facility Reportable Incidents (FRIs) for similar behaviors and revising care plans with interventions for identified residents (J - F0600 - VA)
- Implemented abuse and neglect prevention training for staff by assigning and monitoring training for all new hires during orientation and annually for all employees, including training to observe signs of abuse with cognitively impaired residents and report concerns (J - F0600 - VA)
- Implemented ongoing monitoring of resident grievances for concerns regarding abuse (J - F0600 - VA)
- Implemented weekly skin-check audits by the DON/designee for a portion of the resident census to monitor for concerns (J - F0600 - VA)
- Implemented weekly resident interviews by the Administrator/designee to monitor satisfaction with care and identify reports of abuse (J - F0600 - VA)
- Implemented QAPI oversight of compliance and audit results with ongoing monitoring through the facility QAPI program (J - F0600 - VA)
Failure to Protect Residents From Ongoing Aggression and Abuse by a Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect multiple residents from physical and verbal abuse by another resident with known aggressive behaviors. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses including heart failure, diabetes, dementia, hemiplegia, and seizure disorder repeatedly exhibited aggression toward other residents and staff. Behavior notes documented frequent verbal outbursts with expletives, yelling, and threatening behavior, as well as physical aggression such as ramming another resident’s wheelchair, attempting to strike a resident using a walker, and kicking and punching a nurse. These behaviors were noted to occur multiple times per week or daily, and staff documented that separating the resident from others and moving him to a quiet location were not effective interventions. The aggressive resident’s behaviors were directed toward several specific residents. On one occasion, when another resident came downstairs to visit friends, the aggressive resident yelled profanities and ordered him to leave. On another date in the dining room, the aggressive resident stared and ground his teeth, yelled loudly, frightened two female residents, rammed one resident’s wheelchair as she tried to leave, and lunged toward another resident with a walker, swinging his arms in an attempt to hit her before a male nurse intervened. During the same incident, the aggressive resident kicked and punched a nurse, causing bruising and a knot on the shin and bruising on the chest. On a later date at the elevator, when the aggressive resident encountered another resident he disliked, he began screaming profanities, kicked the other resident, and swung at him, causing the other resident to back into the wall and yell. Additional behavior notes described the aggressive resident yelling repetitively, grinding his teeth, shaking with anger, and attempting to attack a female resident after she asked him to stop yelling, with staff intervening to block him. Staff interviews confirmed that this resident’s behaviors were sporadic, unpredictable, and could be directed at anyone, and that he became aggressive when his wants were not met immediately. Staff reported that another resident was a known trigger and had been moved to another unit, but the aggressive behaviors toward other residents and staff continued. Psychiatric documentation indicated that the aggressive behavior was possibly related to vascular dementia and a mood disorder, and the treatment plan called for identifying triggers, redirection, one-to-one staffing, and psychosocial interventions; however, staff described their responses as largely reactive, focused on separation and occasional one-to-one, and behavior notes repeatedly documented that these interventions were ineffective. The facility also failed to produce an incident summary or investigation for the incident involving two residents in the dining room, despite documentation that they were involved and upset at the time. Interviews with the affected residents showed that they experienced the aggressive resident as loud, hateful, rude, and a bully. One resident reported that the aggressive resident had been physically aggressive toward him in the elevator but that he did not sustain injuries. Two female roommates reported that the aggressive resident had not physically contacted them but had come toward one of them aggressively and was stopped, and they described him as hateful, loud, and believing he should get everything he wants. Another resident stated that the aggressive resident had been aggressive toward her and that she tried to stay to herself. Staff, including CNAs, LPNs, the unit manager, social services, and the facility NP, consistently described the aggressive resident as unpredictable, easily escalated when his demands were not met, and requiring separation when angry. Despite ongoing, documented aggressive behaviors toward multiple residents and staff over an extended period, the facility did not implement and sustain effective interventions to prevent further abuse, and did not consistently investigate all incidents, resulting in a failure to ensure residents’ right to be free from abuse.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was placed on 1 to 1 supervision and will remain on 1 to 1 supervision while out of bed until discharge or a significant change in condition limits the resident's physical ability to encounter another resident; while in bed the resident is not considered a risk because the resident cannot transfer independently.
- Residents #2, #3, #4, and #5 will receive follow-up psychosocial support from facility staff.
- The facility will continue attempts to find alternative placement for Resident #1.
- All residents in the facility will be screened for evidence of abuse and neglect (interviewable residents with BIMS ≥ 8 interviewed using an abuse questionnaire; non-verbal residents and residents with BIMS ≤ 7 assessed head-to-toe to validate absence of signs of physical abuse).
- Any identified concerns from the screening will be addressed according to the facility Abuse Policy.
- All residents will be assessed/reviewed for similar behaviors as exhibited by Resident #1 by reviewing all Facility Reportable Incidents (FRIs), and care plans will be reviewed and revised with interventions for any identified residents.
- All facility and agency staff will be reeducated on the facility Abuse Policy, including abuse prevention, types of abuse, and abuse reporting.
- Staff not present will be required to complete mandatory abuse-policy education prior to the start of their next shift.
- No staff member will be allowed to return to work until the mandatory abuse-policy education has been completed.
- New hire orientation will include abuse-policy training as part of the new hire process.
- All agency staff will be required to complete abuse-policy education prior to starting work in the facility.
- Facility leadership will be reeducated by the Regional Director of Clinical Operations and Regional Director of Operations on assessing triggers, root causes, and escalation patterns and developing an effective and sustained supervision and separation intervention for residents with behavioral disturbances.
- The Medical Director was notified of the situation.
- The facility conducted an Ad Hoc QAPI committee meeting to accept the IJ Removal Plan.
Unsafe Smoking Practices and Inadequate Fire Safety Controls
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure the environment remained free of accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision and safety measures related to resident smoking. Staff permitted residents to smoke in a non-designated courtyard that lacked required fire safety controls, including ashtrays or fire-safe disposal containers, a fire extinguisher, or a fire blanket. The trash receptacle in this area contained combustible materials such as paper, cardboard, and plastic liners, and there were high winds at the time of observation, all of which were documented as increasing the fire ignition risk. On one observed occasion, a resident admitted for post-surgical rehabilitation, with an MDS BIMS score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment and assessed as an independent smoker, was seen smoking in the non-designated courtyard. The resident extinguished a cigarette on the ground and discarded it into the trash receptacle containing combustible waste. No appropriate smoking safety equipment or supervision was present in that courtyard at the time. Staff interviews confirmed that the courtyard where the resident was observed smoking was not a designated smoking area, although residents sometimes smoked there and staff only attempted to redirect them when noticed. The designated smoking courtyard, located in a different area, was reported to have a fireproof metal can for cigarette disposal, a fire extinguisher, and a smoking blanket; however, the fire extinguisher in that designated area had no inspection tag or date and appeared to be a store-bought unit with no evidence of inspection. The facility’s smoking policy required the Administrator to designate outdoor smoking areas and mandated access to noncombustible ashtrays in those areas, but these requirements were not consistently implemented or enforced, contributing to the identified deficiency and immediate jeopardy related to accident hazards and smoking safety.
Removal Plan
- Resident #10 was placed on 1:1 observation for safety reasons due to smoking in an unauthorized area.
- Resident #10 was re-educated on the smoking policy and procedure, including smoking location and cigarette disposal.
- Locks were ordered to be installed on the courtyard doors to prevent unauthorized smoking.
- Lock installation on the non-designated courtyard began.
- The Facility Administrator will conduct a town hall meeting with residents that smoke to review the facility smoking policy (locations, cigarette disposal, and consequences for non-compliance up to suspension of smoking privileges or potential discharge).
- All residents that smoke will have a new smoking policy acknowledgement obtained.
- The Interdisciplinary Team will be educated by the President of Operations on the smoking policy and designated smoking areas.
- Facility staff will be educated by the Director of Nursing or designee on the smoking policy and designated smoking areas; no employee will be allowed to work until educated.
- The Administrator or designee will conduct weekly environmental safety rounds three times a week for 4 weeks, then monthly audits for 2 months to ensure no resident is smoking in a non-designated smoking area.
- The Administrator made the Medical Director aware of the Immediate Jeopardy via telephone.
Failure to Supervise High-Risk Wanderer and Prevent Non-Consensual Sexual Contact
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an accident-hazard-free environment and provide adequate supervision for residents with known wandering, exit-seeking, and sexually disinhibited behaviors. One resident with Wernicke’s encephalopathy, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 99), and full ambulatory ability was repeatedly documented as wandering into other residents’ rooms, disrupting care, and seeking exits. Nursing notes showed that this resident attempted to leave the enclosed courtyard by pushing open the gate, was observed going to numerous exit doors and setting off a door alarm, and wandered throughout multiple units. Despite a physician’s order for a Wander-Guard device and an elopement risk care plan focus, the resident removed the Wander-Guard and it was not replaced, and on the day of survey no Wander-Guard was found on the resident. The elopement event when the resident exited the courtyard gate was not reported to the state agency. Surveyors also identified environmental hazards and lack of supervision related to the courtyard exit. The courtyard gate, which opened to the parking lot, was equipped with an audible alarm and keyed lock, but surveyors found the alarm in the off position and were able to open the gate without any alarm sounding. No staff were present in the courtyard while four residents were there, and surveyors waited approximately five minutes at the open gate with no staff response. The Maintenance Director stated that the alarm had been shut off by someone, that multiple keys were “floating around,” and that he could not account for all of them. He also confirmed that the gate did not have a Wander-Guard alarm. These conditions demonstrated that exit doors and the courtyard gate were not secured or supervised adequately to prevent resident elopement. The facility also failed to protect the cognitively impaired resident from engaging in sexual activities he could not consent to and failed to protect other residents from his behaviors. Progress notes documented that this resident was found on his knees performing oral sex on another male resident who was lying on his bed, and later was found sitting on the side of a female resident’s bed with his pants off while she was fully clothed under the covers. The cognitively impaired resident had no recollection of the sexual event. A psychiatric evaluation documented dementia, Wernicke’s encephalopathy, and altered mental status. The care plan was updated to include a psychosocial problem related to sexual/physical contact with another resident and later to require 1:1 continuous monitoring for behaviors, but multiple nursing staff and CNAs reported they were unaware of the 1:1 requirement, and supervision was not provided. The sexual incident between the two male residents and the subsequent intrusion into the female resident’s room were not reported to the state agency. The surveyors concluded that withholding required supervision for a resident known to be a danger to himself and others constituted neglect and contributed to Immediate Jeopardy related to accidents, hazards, abuse, and neglect. In addition, documentation and assessment processes related to elopement and behavior were deficient. An elopement evaluation completed after the resident’s documented elopement incorrectly indicated no history of elopement and minimized the impact of his wandering on safety and privacy, despite prior notes of him entering other residents’ rooms during personal care and attempting to exit the building. Care plan interventions for behaviors and elopement were not documented as implemented, and no behaviors were recorded on the MAR throughout the resident’s stay. The facility’s incident and abuse investigation files contained only limited documentation related to the sexual incident between the two male residents, lacked the original initial report allegedly faxed to the state agency, and had no fax confirmation for either the initial or follow-up reports. These omissions and inaccuracies in assessment, care planning, implementation, and reporting contributed to the identified deficiency and Immediate Jeopardy. During the survey, additional observations confirmed ongoing failures in supervision and hazard control. On the initial tour, the cognitively impaired resident was observed walking alone from his unit to the main dining room without supervision. The courtyard gate alarm, when later tested, sounded briefly and then went silent without any staff response. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness of critical care plan elements, including the 1:1 supervision requirement for the resident with severe cognitive impairment and sexually disinhibited behavior. Collectively, these actions and inactions demonstrated that the facility did not ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents, elopement, and non-consensual sexual contact, resulting in Immediate Jeopardy and substandard quality of care.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was placed on 1:1 continuous supervision 24 hours/day.
- The resident provider and resident representative were notified.
- Residents who have a BIMS score of 9 or greater have been interviewed to determine if they have experienced any unwanted sexual interaction with another resident, if they have concerns about other residents wandering into their rooms, and if they feel safe residing in the facility.
- Residents who have a BIMS score of less than 9 have had a body skin assessment completed by a licensed nurse to identify any changes in skin that may have resulted from abuse.
- Any newly identified skin assessment areas will be reported to the residents' provider and the residents' representative.
- Other residents who have a moderate or higher risk for elopement have been reviewed to determine that appropriate interventions, including use of a Wander Guard, are in place and functional.
- A staff member has been assigned to continuously monitor the facility exit door to the courtyard until another alarm system can be installed.
- The courtyard gate alarm was activated and is being monitored every 30 minutes to ensure that it remains engaged.
- All current residents will be reviewed to ensure that elopement risk assessments have been completed and that appropriate interventions are being implemented per the resident care plan and provider orders.
- All staff will be re-educated on abuse, including unwanted or non-consensual sexual activity and the capacity to consent.
- All licensed nursing staff will be re-educated on completion of the elopement risk assessment, importance of implementing safe precautions and supervising residents who may be at risk of elopement, and documenting functionality and placement of the Wander Guard.
- The smoke attendant will be educated on safety precautions and their responsibility for supervising the exit door to the courtyard and supervising that the alarm on the courtyard gate is engaged each shift.
- All staff will be re-educated on the importance of supervising wandering residents and approaches to re-direct residents who wander into other resident rooms.
- Residents who have expressed concern of other residents wandering their rooms will be offered interventions such as a room change, use of stop sign, or other alternative, to minimize other residents from wandering into their rooms.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Sexual Abuse and Elopement Due to Inadequate Supervision and Reporting
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a cognitively impaired resident from sexual abuse and neglect, including inadequate supervision despite known risks. One resident with Wernicke’s encephalopathy and severe cognitive impairment, reflected by a BIMS score of 99, was fully ambulatory and had a documented history of wandering, exit seeking, and intrusive behaviors into other residents’ rooms. Another resident involved in a sexual incident had mild cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 13 and self-propelled in a wheelchair. On one occasion, documentation showed the cognitively impaired resident was found in another male resident’s room on his knees performing oral sex; the residents were separated, and the cognitively impaired resident later had no recollection of the event. A subsequent progress note documented the same cognitively impaired resident sitting on the side of a female resident’s bed with his pants off while the other resident was fully clothed under the covers; staff could not later identify this third resident for surveyors. The facility’s care planning and supervision for the cognitively impaired resident were deficient. A comprehensive care plan entry dated 2/24/26 identified a psychosocial well-being problem related to sexual/physical contact with another resident and directed staff to immediately separate and remove the resident from such situations and notify the NP and responsible party/guardian. Another care plan entry dated 3/9/26 specified that the resident had obsessive compulsive behavior and required 1:1 monitoring at all times, medication administration as ordered, and redirection and cues as needed. However, multiple nursing staff and CNAs interviewed on 3/17/26 and 3/18/26 denied knowing that the resident was to be on 1:1 supervision, and supervision was not provided. The care plan interventions focused on reacting after sexual or physical contact was found, and there was no evidence of preventative measures being implemented to protect the resident from himself or to protect others from him. None of the care plan interventions for behaviors or elopement were documented as implemented, and no behaviors were documented on the MAR during the resident’s stay. The facility also failed to adequately supervise the resident’s known wandering and elopement risk and to secure exit doors. Nursing and physician notes documented multiple episodes of wandering and exit seeking, including the resident going into other residents’ rooms during their personal care, attempting to exit through doors, and an elopement through the courtyard gate on 12/15/25, when he pushed the gate and exited to the parking lot before being redirected back inside. An elopement evaluation completed later incorrectly indicated no history of elopement and minimized the impact of the resident’s wandering on safety and privacy, despite prior documentation of elopement and intrusion into other residents’ rooms. A Wander-Guard device had been ordered on 11/13/25, but on 3/17/26 no device was found on the resident, and he had previously removed it on 3/8/26 without replacement or care plan direction until the time of survey. During survey observations, the courtyard gate alarm was found in the off position, the gate could be opened without an alarm sounding, and no staff were present in the courtyard despite residents being there. The resident’s prior elopement and the incident of him unclothed in a female resident’s room were never reported to the state agency, and the facility’s abuse reporting and investigation documentation for the 2/23/26 sexual incident was incomplete, lacked the initial report, lacked staff witness statements, and had no confirmation that required reports were timely submitted to the state agency, contrary to federal, state, and facility policy requirements.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was placed on 1:1 continuous supervision 24 hours/day.
- The resident provider and resident representative were notified.
- Residents who have a BIMS score of 9 or greater have been interviewed to determine if they have experienced any unwanted sexual interaction with another resident, if they have concerns about other residents wandering into their rooms, and if they feel safe residing in the facility.
- Residents who have a BIMS score of less than 9 have had a body skin assessment completed by a licensed nurse to identify any changes in skin that may have resulted from abuse.
- Any newly identified areas from skin assessments will be reported to the residents' provider and the residents' representative.
- Other residents who have a moderate or higher risk for elopement have been reviewed to determine that appropriate interventions, including use of a Wander Guard, are in place and functional.
- A staff member has been assigned to continuously monitor the facility exit door to the courtyard until another alarm system can be installed.
- The courtyard gate alarm was activated and is being monitored every 30 minutes to ensure that it remains engaged.
- All current residents will be reviewed to ensure that elopement risk assessments have been completed and that appropriate interventions are being implemented per the resident care plan and provider orders.
- All staff will be re-educated on abuse, including unwanted or non-consensual sexual activity and the capacity to consent.
- Staff who are unable to participate in the initial abuse training will be educated prior to their next scheduled shift.
- All licensed nursing staff will be re-educated on completion of the elopement risk assessment, importance of implementing safe precautions and supervising residents who may be at risk of elopement, and documenting functionality and placement of the Wander Guard.
- Licensed nursing staff who are unable to participate in the initial elopement training will be educated prior to their next scheduled shift.
- The smoke attendant will be educated on safety precautions and their responsibility for supervising the exit door to the courtyard and supervising that the alarm on the courtyard gate is engaged each shift.
- All staff will be re-educated on the importance of supervising wandering residents and approaches to re-direct residents who wander into other resident rooms.
- Staff who are unable to participate in the initial wandering supervision training will be educated prior to their next scheduled shift.
- Residents who have expressed concern of other residents wandering their rooms will be offered interventions such as a room change, use of stop sign, or other alternative, to minimize other residents from wandering into their rooms.
Failure to Prevent Shellfish Allergen Exposure in Resident Meal Service
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to prevent an allergic reaction for a resident with a documented severe shellfish allergy when the resident was served and consumed lobster ravioli provided by the facility. The resident’s electronic health record listed a shellfish allergy categorized as a food allergy with a severe reaction manifestation and severity, and this allergy was also reflected in the resident’s care profile. The resident had a cognitive communication deficit and was assessed as moderately impaired in cognition for making daily decisions, scoring 12 out of 15 on the BIMS. Despite these documented conditions and allergy information, the facility’s dinner menu for the skilled nursing floor included lobster ravioli, and the resident received and ate 100% of this meal. Around the time of the evening meal, the resident activated the call bell, and an LPN responded. The resident reported difficulty breathing and stated that the dinner served was shellfish, to which he was allergic. The LPN obtained vital signs, which were documented as blood pressure 124/74, heart rate 121, temperature 97.8°F, and oxygen saturation 96% on room air. Although the vital signs were noted to be within normal limits, the resident continued to report trouble breathing. The LPN attempted to contact the on-call physician service but was unable to reach a provider and then called 911 to have the resident transferred to the emergency room for further evaluation and medical management. The LPN later confirmed that the lobster ravioli had come from the facility. At the hospital, the resident was evaluated for acute onset shortness of breath and undifferentiated shock after exposure to shellfish, briefly requiring vasopressor support. The hospital documentation noted a differential diagnosis of bronchiolitis versus allergic reaction, and the resident was treated with 25 mg of Benadryl and admitted for further evaluation. Facility interviews and documentation indicated that the dietary department had a process in which resident food allergies were to be communicated via a notify form and posted allergy lists in the pantry, and that dietary aides were expected to reference these lists when plating meals. The dietician stated that the resident knew he ordered lobster ravioli and that the dietary aide should have caught the shellfish allergy, while a dietary aide described relying on the posted allergy list when plating meals. Despite these procedures and the posted allergy information, the resident with a documented severe shellfish allergy was able to order, receive, and consume lobster ravioli, resulting in an allergic reaction that required emergency treatment and hospitalization and was cited as Immediate Jeopardy with harm.
Removal Plan
- Reinforce use of the communication log posted in the Skilled Nursing pantry.
- Dietary staff verify identified residents with food allergies at each meal service using a daily updated log and dietary notification communication of resident allergies provided to dining staff.
- Educate all Skilled Nursing Facility staff (including agency staff) on the facility process: nursing enters orders into PCC; nursing completes diet notification form including food allergies and provides it to dietary; allergy is reflected on the menu ticket following manual order transcription; kitchen staff receive and verify diet order including any food allergies; kitchen staff sign and acknowledge resident food allergy via the compliance log with every meal.
- Ensure all nursing and dietary staff are educated before start of their shift; staff on PTO are educated upon return prior to next assigned shift.
- DON (or designee) audits new admission records weekly to ensure data entry and communication form process was followed for a defined period or as determined by the QAPI committee.
- Dietary Manager (or designee) monitors meal tickets for residents with food allergies weekly to ensure food allergies are included on the meal ticket for a defined period or as determined by the QAPI committee.
- Monitor process compliance and audit results in the facility QAPI program; administrator responsible for ongoing compliance.
Resident Restrained for Urine Catheterization Resulting in Harm
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves facility staff physically restraining a cognitively impaired resident during an in-and-out catheterization to obtain a urine specimen, despite the resident’s resistance and inability to consent. The resident had benign prostatic hyperplasia and was documented as severely cognitively impaired on the admission MDS, with a BIMS score of 4/15 and always incontinent in the urinary continence section. A physician’s order directed that a urinalysis with culture and sensitivity be obtained every shift for three days. On the evening in question, the LPN attempted to obtain the ordered urine specimen via straight catheterization after the resident was unable to void into a urinal. According to the facility’s own investigation and staff statements, when the LPN entered the room to insert the catheter, the resident verbally resisted by saying “Don’t do that” and crossed his legs. The LPN then called for assistance from two CNAs. The visitor present was asked to leave the room, and while in the hallway, the visitor heard the resident yelling but could not make out the words. CNA statements and the facility’s synopsis of events documented that the two CNAs held the resident’s arms and legs while the LPN proceeded with the catheter insertion in order to obtain the urine specimen. The facility’s findings concluded that the CNAs did hold the resident’s extremities during the procedure and that the resident was restrained against his will. During the catheterization, bright blood was noted in the urine sample, and the LPN stopped the procedure when blood was seen entering the catheter tubing. Nursing notes documented that the resident appeared anxious but stable immediately afterward. Later that night and early the following morning, the resident experienced discomfort and pain with urination, with hematuria and blood clots noted in the brief, leading to notification of the on-call NP and transfer to the hospital. The facility’s grievance report and investigation summary documented that the catheter was used for a urine sample against the resident’s will, resulting in bleeding in the groin area and hospitalization, and that the allegation of abuse by restraint was substantiated based on staff interviews and the definition of abuse in the facility’s policy as willful infliction of injury or unreasonable confinement with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish.
Removal Plan
- Staff members involved were placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation and subsequently terminated and reported to their respective licensing agencies.
- Immediate skin assessment completed on Resident 42; no skin impairment or changes noted.
- Resident 42 was evaluated by the facility social worker for psychosocial distress related to the incident; no distress was reported or observed.
- Residents with orders for straight catheterization were identified as potentially affected.
- Immediate skin checks were completed for all residents.
- Interviews were conducted with residents and no care issues or restraint issues were identified.
- CNAs, LPNs, RNs, Dietary, Social Services, Housekeeping, Therapy, Maintenance, Activities and MDS Coordinator were in serviced and educated on restraint policies and procedures and who the coordinator to whom concerns should be reported.
- Staff were educated on a resident's right to refuse or decline care and procedures and how nursing staff are to respond when a resident refuses care or treatment.
- Staff attending the training were educated to offer alternatives if possible and provide education on the needed treatment.
- New hire and annual training will be assigned and monitored for completion.
- Training regarding restraint use will be given for all new hires during orientation and annually for all employees.
- Resident grievances will be monitored continually for concerns regarding restraint use.
- The DON or designee will audit skin checks weekly for 50% of resident census to monitor for concerns.
- The Administrator or designee will conduct resident interviews to monitor satisfaction with care and monitor for reports of restraint use.
- Compliance and audit reports will be monitored through the facility QAPI program.
- The Administrator is responsible for ongoing compliance.
Resident Restrained for Catheterization Resulting in Bleeding and Hospitalization
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to protect a cognitively impaired resident from physical abuse during an attempt to obtain a urine specimen. The resident had benign prostatic hyperplasia and was documented as severely cognitively impaired on the admission MDS, with a BIMS score of 4/15 and urinary status coded as always incontinent. A physician’s order dated 01/24/2025 directed that a urinalysis with culture and sensitivity be obtained every shift for three days. On the evening of 01/28/2025, an LPN attempted to collect a urine sample. When the resident was unable to void into a urinal, the LPN proceeded with an in-and-out catheterization despite the resident’s cognitive impairment and subsequent resistance. During the catheterization attempt, the resident verbally and physically resisted the procedure. According to the resident’s friend, who was present, the resident stated words such as “Don’t do that” and crossed his legs, and later grabbed his penis to stop the nurse. The LPN then called for assistance from two CNAs. The friend reported being asked to step into the hallway, where she heard the resident yelling but could not make out his words. Staff interviews and written statements confirmed that the CNAs held the resident’s arms and legs while the LPN inserted the catheter in order to obtain the urine specimen. The LPN later acknowledged that the resident was restrained during the procedure and that she believed restraining residents in this manner was common practice, and she expressed surprise when informed that residents have the right to refuse care and cannot be restrained against their will. Bright blood was noted in the urine during the catheterization, at which point the LPN stopped the procedure, removed the catheter, and documented that the resident appeared anxious but stable. Later that night and early the following morning, staff documented that the resident experienced discomfort and pain with urination, with hematuria and blood clots noted in the brief. The on-call NP was notified and ordered transfer to the hospital, where the resident was found to have an indwelling urinary catheter with blood in the urine. Facility investigation, including staff interviews and review of statements, concluded that the CNAs had held the resident’s arms and legs while the LPN catheterized him, and the allegation of abuse was substantiated as willful infliction of injury by forcing a procedure against the resident’s will, resulting in bleeding and hospitalization.
Removal Plan
- The allegation was reported, investigated and substantiated for abuse.
- Staff members involved were placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation and subsequently terminated and reported to their respective licensing agencies.
- Immediate skin assessment completed on the resident; no skin impairment or changes noted.
- The resident was evaluated by the facility social worker for psychosocial distress related to the incident; no distress was reported or observed.
- Residents with orders for straight catheterization were identified as potentially affected.
- Immediate skin checks were completed for all residents.
- Resident interviews were conducted and no care issues or abuse issues were identified.
- Staff members were in-serviced and educated on abuse policies and procedures and who the abuse coordinator is.
- Staff were educated on a resident's right to refuse or decline care and procedures and how nursing staff are to respond when a resident refuses care or treatment.
- Staff were educated to offer alternatives if possible and provide education on the needed treatment.
- Abuse and Neglect Prevention Training will be assigned and monitored for all new hires during orientation and annually for all employees.
- Resident grievances will be monitored continually for concerns regarding abuse.
- All SNF team members will be trained upon hire and annually to observe signs of abuse with cognitively impaired residents and report concerns to the Administrator.
- The DON or designee will audit skin checks weekly for a portion of the resident census to monitor for concerns.
- The Administrator or designee will conduct resident interviews weekly to monitor satisfaction with care and monitor for reports of abuse.
- Compliance and audit results will be monitored through the facility QAPI program, with the Administrator responsible for ongoing compliance.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
