F 0558
Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on
observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to reside
and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodations of resident needs and preferences
except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 3 of 8
residents (Residents #1, #2, & #3) reviewed for resident rights.The facility failed to ensure Residents #1, #2,
& #3's call lights were within reach on 12/09/2025.This failure could place residents at risk of their needs
not being metFindings include:Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 12/10/2025,
reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses
which included: Epilepsy (a brain disorder causing recurrent seizure), Alzheimer's disease (progressive
brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills), and muscle weakness (loss of strength in
muscles making it difficult to move or perform physical task).Record review of Resident #1's admission
MDS assessment, dated 10/15/2025, reflected Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 99, which indicated
severe cognitive impairment. Resident #1 was dependent in the areas of shower/bathe self, upper body
dressing, lower dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident
#1's care plan, dated 12/10/2025, reflected Resident #1 was care planned for high risk for fall r/t unaware of
safety needs, gait/balance problems, and seizure activity. Resident #1 had an intervention of be sure the
resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it. During observations on 12/09/2025
at 10:29am and 2:47pm, Resident #1's call light was observed hanging towards the ground on the right
side of her bed Resident #1 could not be interviewed due to her cognitive status. Record review of Resident
#2's admission record, dated 12/10/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility
on [DATE]. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included: chronic idiopathic constipation (long last/frequent
constipation), essential primary hypertension (high blood pressure), unsteady feet (feeling wobbly, off
balance, or like you might fall while walking or standing), and muscle weakness (loss of strength in muscles
making it difficult to move or perform physical task).Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS
assessment, dated 10/08/2025, reflected Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 07, which indicated severe
cognitive impairment. Resident #2 was dependent in the areas of toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self,
upper body dressing, lower dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. Record review of
Resident #2's care plan, dated 12/10/2025, reflected Resident #2 was care planned for at risk for falls.
Resident #2 had an intervention of be sure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the
resident to use it. During an observation on 12/09/2025 at 10:31am, Resident #2's call light was observed
hanging towards the ground on the left side of his bed. During an interview with Resident #2 on 12/09/25 at
10:31am, Resident #2 stated that he could not reach his call light, and he would have to yell for assistance
if he needed it. Resident #2 stated his call light was never in reach and must wait for staff to pass by to get
assistance. Record review of Resident #3's admission record, dated 12/10/2025,
Residents Affected - Some
(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:
455515
Printed: 05/15/2026
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
455515
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
12/10/2025
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Copperas Cove Nursing & Rehabilitation
607 W Ave B
Copperas Cove, TX 76522
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 0558
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
Residents Affected - Some
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #3 had diagnoses
which included: type 2 diabetes mellitus (when the body cannot use insulin correctly and sugar builds up in
the blood without any common health problems associated with the disease), gastro esophageal reflux
disease without esophagitis (when stomach acid frequently flows back up into food pipe causing irritation,
heartburn, and a sour taste), and Alzheimer's disease (progressive brain disorder that slowly destroys
memory and thinking skills)Record review of Resident #3's admission MDS assessment, dated 10/06/2025,
reflected Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated Resident #3 was cognitively intact. Resident
#3 required partial/moderate assistance in the areas of oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self,
upper body dressing, lower dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. Record review of
Resident #3's care plan, dated 12/10/2025, reflected Resident #3 was care planned for ADL self-care
performance deficit r/t Alzheimer's with an intervention of encourage the resident to use bell to call for
assistance. During an observation on 12/09/2025 at 10:58am, Resident #3's call light was observed
approximately 3 feet away from him and out of reach. During an interview with Resident #3 on 12/09/25 at
10:58am, Resident #3 stated that he could not reach his call light, and he would have to get out of bed and
crawl to get it. Resident #3 stated he did not know how long his call light had been out of reach. During an
interview with CNA A on 12/09/2025 at 2:10 PM, CNA A stated she was providing care for Resident #3
during the time his call light was not within reach. CNA A stated she moved the call light when she was
assisting Resident #3 and forgot to put it back within reach. CNA A stated a negative outcome could be that
the resident would not be able to call for assistance if he needed. During an interview with CNA B on
12/09/2025 at 2:30 PM, CNA B stated she was providing care for Resident #2 during the time his call light
was not within reach. CNA B stated she was not aware that Resident #2's call light was not within his reach.
CNA B stated a negative outcome could have been the resident could have fallen attempting to get
assistance from staff. During an interview with the DON on 12/09/2025 at 3:45 PM, the DON stated all
residents' call lights should be always within reach. The DON stated it was everyone's responsibility to
ensure residents call lights were always within reach. The DON stated if a resident's call light was not within
reach, the resident would not be able to call for assistance.During an interview with the ADM on 12/09/2025
at 4:00 PM, the ADM stated call lights should always be within reach. The ADM stated it was everyone's
responsibility to ensure the call lights were within reach. The ADM stated if a resident's call light was not
within reach, then the residents would not be able to express their needs nor have their needs met. The
ADM stated her expectation was for staff members to ensure call lights were within reach prior to existing
the resident's rooms.A record review of the facility's Answering the Call Light policy, dated 2001, reflected
The purpose of this procedure is to ensure timely responses to the resident's requests and needs.General
Guidelines5. When the resident is in bed or confined to a chair be sure the call light is within easy reach of
the resident.
Event ID:
Facility ID:
455515
If continuation sheet
Page 2 of 2