Skip to main content

Inspection visit

Inspection

DARCY HALL OF LIFE CARECMS #1055161 citation on this visit
1 citation recorded

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

This survey cited 1 deficiency. The full statement and the facility’s plan of correction follow, verbatim from the federal record.

F 0684 Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals. Level of Harm - Minimal harm or potential for actual harm **NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and clinical and administrative record review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services were provided for 1 of 2 sampled residents, (Resident # 2), reviewed for medical appointments and/or medical procedures, as evidenced by the facility's failure to provide the necessary nursing supervision during transport to medical procedure for an incapacitated resident; and failed to ensure the health care surrogate was fully informed and adhered to preferences voiced or informed when changes are made prior to implementation. The findings included: Review of the clinical record for Resident #2, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), Hypertension (HTN), Diabetes Mellitus (DM), Dysphagia following cerebral infarction, Epilepsy and expressive aphasia. Review of the Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 1, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident is dependent on staff for total care of all activities of daily living (ADLs). An interview was conducted on 07/08/25 in the morning with a family member of Resident #2 who stated that her non-verbal, total care family member was sent to a facility more than 80 miles away unaccompanied by nursing staff to receive a procedure under anesthesia.The family member and health care proxy gave approval for her family member to have a feeding tube inserted and was asked her hospital preferences. She provided the facility with multiple local hospitals within 15 miles of the facility. The resident was sent to Miami (80 miles away) without her prior knowledge or approval. She stated the facility contacted her when the resident had already left the facility and was traveling to Miami. She was informed that her family member was staying overnight, thus they did not send an aide to accompany her. She stated she had informed the caller that she did not approve of the transport to Miami, especially for her incapacitated family member to travel alone with just the transport driver. She further stated the facility was aware that she could not attend the appointment and requested that they cancel the transport. This was not done. The family member stated she was later informed that the resident would not be staying overnight but would be returning to the facility later that day. She further stated that the original information for this appointment she was provided for [another hospital - Name provided in Palm Beach County] on 06/09/25 and she would be accompanied by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) since she (the family member) was out of the country. Since they rescheduled the appointment to 06/10/25, all information changed and it was not approved by her, who was the health care proxy. Review of the Nursing Progress Note on 06/03/25 at 10:10 AM, documented, Verbal orders received to send resident to ER [Emergency Room] for PEG [Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy] tube placement. Call placed to resident's family member regarding PEG tube placement and that NP [Nurse Practitioner] would like to send to ER for placement. Resident's family member would like for resident to go to [Name provided - hospital in Palm Beach County] for PEG tube placement. This writer will contact resident's family member on transportation Residents Affected - Few (continued on next page) Any deficiency statement ending with an asterisk (*) denotes a deficiency which the institution may be excused from correcting providing it is determined that other safeguards provide sufficient protection to the patients. (See instructions.) Except for nursing homes, the findings stated above are disclosable 90 days following the date of survey whether or not a plan of correction is provided. For nursing homes, the above findings and plans of correction are disclosable 14 days following the date these documents are made available to the facility. If deficiencies are cited, an approved plan of correction is requisite to continued program participation. LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE FORM CMS-2567 (02/99) Previous Versions Obsolete Facility ID: If continuation sheet Page 1 of 2 Event ID: 105516 Printed: 05/28/2026 Form Approved OMB No. 0938-0391 Department of Health & Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES AND PLAN OF CORRECTION (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION 105516 B. Wing A. Building (X3) DATE SURVEY COMPLETED 07/09/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE Darcy Hall of Life Care 2170 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33409 For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency. (X4) ID PREFIX TAG SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0684 Level of Harm - Minimal harm or potential for actual harm Residents Affected - Few FORM CMS-2567 (02/99) Previous Versions Obsolete time and when resident will be leaving building, resident's family member verbalized understanding. Another note at 11:57 from the nurse documented, This writer was made aware that resident is now under another medical service with new orders received to schedule an appointment with a physician with these services. On 06/07/25 at 5:00 PM, the Advance Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) documented the resident is a candidate for a G-tube placement and has an appointment early Monday morning to go to the hospital on [DATE]. There are no further notes until 06/10/25 at 8:36 AM, which documented Resident left via stretcher with as needed [PRN] portable oxygen tank with resident accompanied by two transportation personnel from Nursing Services (transport company). Call then placed to resident's family member that resident has left the building on her way to the hospital in Miami [area]. It was at that time that resident's family member stated that she did not authorize resident to go to Miami. Call then placed to the (medical services) NP regarding resident's family member does not want resident to go to Miami [area] and that the resident is currently enroute. The Medical Service NP states that she would call this writer back with any updates. Awaiting return call. An interview was conducted on 07/08/25 at 3:26 PM with the ARNP, who confirmed that the resident was prescribed to have G-tube placement. He stated there was some mix-up with transportation on Monday, so the appointment had to be rescheduled. He stated he rescheduled the appointment and transportation, and when he called the transportation company, [Name provided], they did not have an order to transport Resident #2 on 06/09 but had placed it for pick-up on 06/10/25.The ARNP stated he spoke with the family member the previous week and she was on a cruise, so we discussed having the appointment on Monday, 06/09/25. He doesn't recall whether he mentioned to the family member that the appointment was in Miami [area], but she did agree with the PEG tube placement. An interview was conducted on 07/09/25 at 3:44 PM with the Clinical Advisor Nurse Practitioner, who stated the facility called her the morning the resident was transferred out. She stated she provided clarification to the family, but she didn't write a progress note. She stated the family was given some misinformation about the procedure. She informed the family the procedure was a same day intervention, and the resident would be coming back to the facility. She stated she only provided the clarification to the family. An interview was conducted on 07/09/25 at 4:00 PM with the nurse, Staff A, who had called the family member on 06/10/25. She confirmed she was also the nurse who received the original order for the PEG tube placement and she spoke with the family member. She agreed to the placement of the tube at a local hospital. She was originally under the impression that the resident would be sent to the emergency room for placement and [a second family member] provided her with her hospital preferences. She later learned that the resident was under another medical service, and she thought the Nurse Practitioner (NP) would discuss with the family member all the details for the procedure. She confirmed she had contacted the resident's family member on the morning the resident left the facility for the procedure. The family member was apparently unaware that the resident was traveling to Miami area, and the resident was not accompanied by staff. Staff A stated the facility does not provide supervision for medical / surgical appointments. Event ID: Facility ID: 105516 If continuation sheet Page 2 of 2

Reading this as a family member? Your long-term care ombudsman is a free advocate for residents and families.

Back to top

Citations

1 citation recorded*CMS

What do CMS severity letters mean?

Serious (G-L). Actual harm to a resident, or immediate jeopardy. Codes G through I indicate actual harm; J through L indicate immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety.

General (A-F). No actual harm found, or harm that is minimal. The facility must still submit a Plan of Correction. Most CMS citations land here.

Each letter combines severity with scope: how many residents the deficiency affected.

  • 0684GeneralS&S Dpotential for harm

    F684 - Quality of care

    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the July 9, 2025 survey of DARCY HALL OF LIFE CARE?

This was a inspection survey of DARCY HALL OF LIFE CARE on July 9, 2025. The surveyor cited 1 deficiency, recorded on the federal Form 2567 statement of deficiencies.

Were any deficiencies cited at DARCY HALL OF LIFE CARE on July 9, 2025?

Yes, 1 deficiency was cited, each with a CMS Scope and Severity grade. The first was: "Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals."

What type of survey was this?

This was a inspection survey conducted by state surveyors under federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) oversight. Findings are published on CMS Care Compare.

Share this reportEmail

Next steps

Concerned about a resident’s care?Find your local ombudsman through the Eldercare Locatoror file a complaint with your state survey agency.

Researching this visit professionally?Book a 15-minute calland we will walk through what we have on file.

Data from CMS Care Compare public records. Dataset last refreshed . If you believe any information is inaccurate, report it here.