Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

MARCH 1999 

OEI-02-98-00330 

Nursing Home Survey and Certification: 

Overall Capacity 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 

protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 

health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This statutory mission is carried out through a 

nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The 

Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 

legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 

Inspector General. It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 

inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public. The 

inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 

effectiveness of departmental programs. 

OEI's New York Regional Office prepared this report under the direction of John I. Molnar, 

Regional Inspector General and Renee C. Dunn, Deputy Regional Inspector General. Principal 

OEI staff included: 

REGION HEADQUARTERS 

Lucille Cop, RN Susan Burbach, Program Specialist

Danielle Fletcher

Daniel Ginsberg

Steve Shaw

Patricia Banta, RN intern

To obtain copies of this report, please call the New York Regional Office at (212) 264-2000. 

Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 

http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To describe the overall capacity of the State survey and certification program to monitor 

quality of care in nursing homes. 

BACKGROUND 

While many studies indicate that changes in law and regulations may have had a positive 

effect on improving the environment and overall health care of nursing home residents, 

recent reports by the Health Care Financing Administration and the General Accounting 

Office have raised serious concerns about residents’ care and well-being. The Senate 

Special Committee on Aging held hearings in the summer of 1998 on these results. At the 

same time, the Office of Inspector General undertook additional studies aimed at 

assessing the quality of care in nursing homes. 

The 1987 Nursing Home Reform Act changed these requirements by introducing an 

increased focus on the quality of life and care, the importance of the individual resident, 

and the need to help the resident reach the “highest practicable level” of functioning. 

Enforcement policies were established that gave the Health Care Financing Administration 

the license to impose a variety of corrective measures when a facility is not in substantial 

compliance with the requirements for participation in the Medicare and/or Medicaid 

program. 

This report examines the capacity of the State nursing home survey and certification 

program to monitor quality of care. A companion report analyzes trends in the Online 

Survey Certification and Reporting System (OSCAR) data that indicate quality of care 

problems in nursing homes. Other Office of Inspector General reports address the trend in 

reported abuse in nursing home residents and the role of the ombudsman in protecting 

nursing home residents. 

We selected a purposive sample of ten States: New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, 

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and Tennessee. We analyzed OSCAR 

data in these States to identify trends in the amount and nature of deficiencies in nursing 

homes quality of care. We obtained and reviewed written procedures for State survey and 

certification programs. To better understand the overall context of these deficiencies, we 

conducted structured interviews with the State directors and surveyors. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 1 OEI-02-98-00330 
FINDINGS 

Generally Mandatory Surveys Are Performed Timely and Follow the Prescribed 

Process 

All States report implementing the Health Care Financing Administration’s guidelines in 

the same way, including an entrance conference, resident interviews, reviewing medical 

records, and concluding the review with an exit conference to provide the home with 

information about their potentially deficient areas. Based on OSCAR data over the last 

four standard surveys, all sample States completed 97 percent of standard surveys for all 

nursing homes in the mandated time frame of 9 to 15 months. All States report having a 

complaint process, although their procedures vary by State. 

However, There Are Significant Weaknesses in the Process 

Although all States report that nursing home standard surveys are unannounced, almost all 

directors and surveyors believe that facilities can roughly predict the survey start date. 

Most State directors and surveyors say they do not begin standard surveys on the 

weekend or evenings, but do continue standard surveys into the evening hours and 

conduct complaint surveys on weekends and evenings. 

The OSCAR data show 900 nursing homes have been cited with the same deficiencies 

over the past four contiguous surveys, representing 13 percent of all homes in sample 

States. Nursing homes are given the opportunity to correct their deficiencies without 

penalty with a plan of correction. State directors and surveyors cite concerns with 

provisions that allow facilities the opportunity to avoid penalties and comply with 

regulations after the citation of deficiencies. Half of the State Directors and three-fourths 

of surveyors indicate that current enforcement measures are questionable, citing the lack 

of both the effectiveness of the penalties and the timeliness of the enforcement. 

The OSCAR data also show that nursing home abuse complaints receive little to no 

action. Of the 4,707 substantiated and unsubstantiated abuse complaints reported between 

January 1997 and July 1998, ninety-seven percent of the complaint resolution concludes 

with no action, plans of correction, or “other”. 

Staff Resources May Be Inadequate in Some Cases 

The overall number of surveyors varies by State, which may affect the intensity and 

thoroughness of their surveys, their ability to conduct follow-up reviews to verify 

correction of deficiencies, and to respond to complaints. The surveyor teams vary based 

upon facility size, resident characteristics, facility history, and surveyor availability. Some 

surveyors note the need for more Health Care Financing Administration training which 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 2 OEI-02-98-00330 
would provide a forum for surveyors to discuss issues and policy with other surveyors in 

different States. 

Coordination with Ombudsman Is Not Working Effectively 

Looking specifically at abuse complaints, the survey agency received only 13 percent of 

the total ombudsmen abuse complaints per month in 1997. Some States may have agencies 

other than the survey and certification agency designated to investigate abuse complaints. 

Ombudsman programs generally investigate and work to resolve complaints brought to 

their attention. However, only 5 percent of all complaints to the State survey and 

certification agency originate from the ombudsmen. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The resident-centered long-term care requirements of the nursing home survey are

essential to guarantee the quality of care in nursing homes. Clearly some major problems

need to be addressed. Our findings support and elaborate on the Health Care Financing

Administration’s (HCFA) initiative to strengthen the enforcement efforts by: 

< making them more timely and effective,

< changing the survey schedule to make surveys more unpredictable, 

< increasing the number of night and weekend surveys,

< increasing the number of surveys at nursing homes with chronic quality of care

problems, and 

< focusing on specific problems such as pressure sores, dehydration, and 

malnutrition. 

These initiatives, if carried out completely, appear to be responsive to most of the 

problems in this report as well as our companion report “Nursing Home Survey and 

Certification: Deficiency Trends.” 

In light of our findings in this report, additional action is needed. We recommend that 

HCFA: 

< evaluate the surveyor staffing in each State to assure that adequate staffing is 

available to complete all standard surveys, follow up surveys, and respond to 

complaints, 

< provide additional training to State surveyors,

< provide a forum for State surveyors to meet and discuss common issues, and

< facilitate better coordination with the Ombudsman program.

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 3 OEI-02-98-00330 
AGENCY COMMENTS 

We received comments on the draft report from HCFA, the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Administration on Aging (AoA), and informally 

from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation (ASL). The HCFA and AoA generally concur 

with our recommendations. The AoA and the ASL provided suggestions for clarifications 

of the text which have been incorporated into the final report. 

The ASPE expressed some concern about the ability of OSCAR data to assess quality of 

care in nursing homes. We recognize the limitations of OSCAR but used it as only one 

indicator of quality. We are happy to re-emphasize here what we say in our report that 

OSCAR data should not be looked at independently. In this report we used it in 

combination with the views of nursing home surveyors and State Directors. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 4 OEI-02-98-00330 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 6

FINDINGS

Survey Process ....................................................... 14

Weaknesses in the Process .............................................. 17

Staff Resources ...................................................... 23

Coordination with Ombudsman .......................................... 25

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 27

APPENDICES

A: Deficiency Tags .................................................... 29

B: Comments ........................................................ 33

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 5 OEI-02-98-00330 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To describe the overall capacity of the State survey and certification program to monitor 

quality of care in nursing homes. 

BACKGROUND 

While many studies indicate that changes in law and regulations may have had a positive 

effect on improving the environment and overall health care of nursing home residents, 

recent reports by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) have raised serious concerns about residents’ care and wellbeing. The Senate Special Committee on Aging held hearings in the summer of 1998 on 

these results. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) undertook a series of studies aimed 

at assessing the quality of care in nursing homes. This report examines the capacity of the 

State nursing home survey and certification program to monitor quality of care. A 

companion report analyzes trends in the Online Survey Certification and Reporting System 

(OSCAR) data that indicate quality of care problems in nursing homes. Future OIG 

reports will address the trend in reported abuse in nursing home residents, the role of the 

ombudsman, and the availability of nursing home survey results. 

Generally, a nursing home is a residential facility offering daily living assistance to 

individuals who are physically or mentally unable to live independently. Residents are 

provided rooms, meals, assistance with daily living, and in most cases, some medical 

treatment for those who require it. Medicare can help pay for skilled nursing facility 

(SNF) care for up to 100 days in a benefit period when a beneficiary meets certain 

conditions. Medicaid coverage varies among States. Medicaid eligible beneficiaries who 

require custodial care such as help with eating, bathing, taking medicine and toileting, as 

well as those who require skilled care may have nursing home stay paid for by Medicaid. 

Medicaid payments to nursing homes in 1996 totaled $29.6 billion. In 1989 Medicare paid 

$2.8 billion to nursing homes, an amount totaling 4.7 percent of the Medicare budget. In 

1996 this amount had increased to $10.6 billion, totaling 9 percent of the Medicare 

budget. 

In 1986 the Institute of Medicine conducted a study on nursing home regulation. The 

Institute reported prevalent problems regarding the quality of care for nursing home 

residents and the need for stronger Federal regulations. In 1987 the General Accounting 

Office (GAO) reported that over one third of nursing homes were operating below the 

Federal minimum standards. These reports, along with widespread concern regarding 

nursing home conditions, persuaded Congress to pass the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 6 OEI-02-98-00330 
Act of 1987 (OBRA 1987). As a part of OBRA 1987, Congress passed the 

comprehensive Nursing Home Reform Act (PL 100-203). These actions expanded 

requirements that nursing facilities had to comply with prior to Medicare certification. 

The Nursing Home Reform Act also ceded personal rights to nursing home residents such 

as the right to be free of physical or mental abuse, and the right to be free from chemical 

and physical restraints. It also altered the principles for enforcement of Federal standards 

of care in nursing homes. 

Medicare Requirements 

The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has the responsibility to act as 

“prudent purchaser” by ensuring that nursing homes participating in Medicare and/or 

Medicaid meet certain requirements for quality environment and services. These 

requirements are found at 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 483, Subpart B. 

The OBRA 1987, as amended in 1988, 1989, and 1990, changed these requirements by 

introducing an increased focus on the quality of life and care, the importance of the 

individual resident, and the need to help the resident reach the “highest practicable level” 

of functioning. It also included interviewing and assessing residents rather than simply 

reviewing medical records. 

Also, as part of The Nursing Home Reform Act, HCFA developed the Minimum Data 

Sets (MDS) which required the Secretary to specify a minimum data set of core elements 

and common definitions in conducting the regulatory-required resident assessments and to 

establish guidelines for use of the data set. The MDS collects data through resident 

assessment measures with subsequent progress or decline documented in electronic 

format. Nursing homes must “conduct standardized, reproducible assessments of each 

resident’s functional capacity...” within 14 days of admission. Additional assessments 

must be completed within 12 months of the most recent full assessment and following a 

significant change in the resident’s status. This information tool, while aimed at improving 

assessment and consequent care planning, can also assist the surveyors in pre-survey 

preparation by highlighting potential areas of concern. 

Enforcement Procedures 

The 1987 Nursing Home Reform Act enforcement provisions were enacted when the 

State Operations Manual (SOM) became effective on July 1, 1995. The HCFA had 

several process goals during the implementation of the new survey and enforcement 

systems. The first was to promote consistency through extensive training, the second was 

to link appropriate remedies to deficiencies, and the third was to avoid unnecessary 

procedures. Congress recognized that one enforcement response would not be 

appropriate for all deficiencies. Enforcement policies were established that gave HCFA 

the license to impose a variety of corrective measures when a facility is not in substantial 

compliance with the requirements for participation in the Medicare and/or Medicaid 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 7 OEI-02-98-00330 
program. Some options include temporary management, denial of payment for new 

admissions, civil money penalties, termination of the facility, or State monitoring of the 

facility. States are responsible for establishing their own remedy guidelines. 

The HCFA imposed a number of administrative changes on enforcement procedures 

following the implementation of the State Operations Manual. In June of 1995, HCFA 

enacted a temporary moratorium on the collection of certain lower-level money penalties 

(CMPs). The moratorium preceded HCFA’s decision to alter the State Operations 

Manual in December of 1996. “Civil monetary penalties are now limited to situations of 

immediate jeopardy or to nursing facilities that are poor performers or have serious 

deficiencies that are not corrected at the time of a revisit.” Additional changes by HCFA 

redefined the scope of deficiencies, permitted States to avoid revisits in facilities that have 

lower level deficiencies, and established new terms to define facilities that are not in 

substantial compliance. 

Requirements of Surveys 

An important characteristic of nursing homes is their Federal certification status for the 

Medicare and/or Medicaid programs. While some nursing homes may not meet 

certification requirements, or may elect not to participate in either program, nearly all 

nursing homes had some form of certification in 1996. The Nursing Home Reform Act 

defines the State survey and certification process for determining nursing home 

compliance with the Federal standards. 

To ensure acceptable compliance, both the State for Medicaid facilities, and HCFA for 

Medicare facilities, are responsible for performing routine facility surveys. For those 

facilities designated as dually-certified, HCFA has the primary responsibility. The HCFA 

contracts with States to perform the surveys for Medicare and dually-certified nursing 

homes. The survey process determines, and the resulting survey documentation records 

(HCFA-2567), the compliance or noncompliance of the facilities. When a facility fails to 

meet a specific requirement, a deficiency or citation is given to the facility by the 

surveyors. Surveyors provide the reasons justifying any resulting enforcement action and 

the record on which to defend that action in the appeals process. Surveyors are instructed 

to use the Principles of Documentation when determining the extent of non-compliance. 

Generally, there are 20 principles that should be considered in the citation of deficiencies 

on the HCFA-2567. These principals are generic and apply to the documentation of 

survey outcomes regardless of the program (Medicare/Medicaid). 

As a result of the Nursing Home Reform Act, a new survey and certification process was 

implemented in 1995. All nursing facilities are now subject to an unannounced standard 

survey “no later than 15 months after the date of the previous standard survey,” and the 

Statewide average interval between standard surveys must be 12 months or less,” creating 

a Federal standard survey window between 9 and 15 months. Each standard survey 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 8 OEI-02-98-00330 
includes a stratified case mix of nursing home residents measuring medical, nursing and 

rehabilitative care, dietary and nutrition services, activities, social participation, sanitation, 

infection control, and the physical environment. Written plans of care are reviewed to 

determine their adequacy and an audit of residents’ assessments are conducted to 

determine the accuracy of such assessments. There is also a review of facility compliance 

of residents’ rights. 

In addition to the regular survey process there are “special” and “extended” surveys. 

Special surveys may be conducted within two months of any change in ownership, 

administration, management, or director of nursing to determine if the change is having an 

effect on the quality of care in the facility. Extended surveys are performed immediately 

or within two weeks after the standard survey completion on those facilities found to have 

provided substandard quality of care. The survey team reviews the policies and 

procedures that produced the substandard care, expands the size of the sample of 

resident’s assessments, reviews staffing, in-service training, and if necessary, contracts 

with consultants. 

The team for all surveys consists of multi-disciplinary professionals, which must include a 

registered professional nurse. Other professionals who may be on the survey team include 

social workers, therapists, dieticians, pharmacists, administrators, physicians, or others as 

selected by the State. Each State and the Health and Human Services Secretary must 

implement programs to measure and reduce inconsistency in the application of results 

among surveyors. 

Validation surveys are generally conducted by HCFA on a representative sample of 

facilities in each State and must be conducted within two months of the State survey. The 

HCFA utilizes the same survey procedure as the State agency. Recently, some HCFA 

regional offices have chosen to conduct these validation surveys simultaneously with the 

State. The HCFA must survey at least five percent of the number of facilities surveyed by 

the State each year, but this number must never be less than five surveys a year. 

The State Agency Quality Improvement Program (SAQIP) is a process calling for the 

State Agency and HCFA regional offices to work together to develop the State’s 

individual quality improvement plans (IQIPs). The regional office will assist the State by 

providing training, technical assistance, and support as necessary and appropriate. These 

individual plans are tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of each State, and are 

revised and improved based on changing needs. The SAQIP is designed to promote 

quality and ongoing improvement in survey and certification activities, and applies to all 

aspects of the survey and certification process. 

Complaint Procedures 

Each State is required to maintain written procedures and adequate staff to investigate 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 9 OEI-02-98-00330 
complaints of violations at nursing homes. States must review all allegations of resident 

neglect and abuse, and misappropriation of resident property. All allegations, regardless 

of source, must be reviewed in a timely manner. If an allegation is found to have 

occurred, the State must notify in writing, the individuals implicated and the administrator 

of the nursing home where the incident transpired. In addition, each State is required to 

notify the nurse aid registry and licensure boards when an abuse or neglect claim has been 

substantiated. 

Online Survey Certification and Reporting System (OSCAR) 

The HCFA’s Online Survey Certification and Reporting System (OSCAR) came online in 

October 1991 as a replacement for the Medicare/Medicaid Automated Certification 

System (MMACS) and the Rapid Data Retrieval System (RADARS). The HCFA uses 

OSCAR in its survey of Medicare and Medicaid providers to monitor State agency and 

provider performance. OSCAR contains data for the current and 3 previous surveys. 

Some of the data is overwritten as new information is entered (e.g. number of beds, 

address, and employment information), but deficiency data remains and is tracked 

historically. The HCFA recently began tracking the scope and severity of deficiencies 

historically as well. 

Part of the OSCAR data is self-reported information by the nursing homes about the 

facility and its’ patients. The remaining data is information generated by the surveyors 

based on deficiencies. The Federal regulations detailing survey requirements are classified 

into 17 major categories. The specific survey requirements within these categories were 

consolidated from 325 individual items to 185 items effective on July 1, 1995. 

Prior Studies 

A recent study, “The Regulation and Enforcement of Federal Nursing Home Standards” 

by Charlene Harrington published in March of 1998, details the problems with nursing 

home certification that precipitated the action by Congress in passing the Nursing Home 

Reform Act. She challenges the declining State deficiency averages by raising the notion 

that the enforcement process may be weakening rather than nursing facilities improving 

quality of care. 

“The National State Auditors Association Joint Performance Audit on Long-Term Care”, 

completed in May of 1998 by the Louisiana Office of the Legislative Auditor, compiled 

information from ten States regarding survey and certification concerns. Issues discussed 

include licensing, inspection, sanctions, complaints, and reimbursement. The audit 

findings conclude that States should vary the timing of inspections, evaluate how 

aggressively they are imposing State sanctions on facilities with deficiencies, and avoid 

delaying the investigation of complaints. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 10 OEI-02-98-00330 
The Secretary released a report to Congress in July of 1998 indicating that significant 

improvements were made since 1995 in the quality of care delivered by nursing homes. 

These improvements included more appropriate use of physical restraints, anti-psychotic 

drugs, anti-depressants, urinary catheters, and hearing aids. The report also found a need 

for further improvements by States, nursing homes, and others. Additional steps will be 

taken to address the problems identified in the report and include tougher enforcement of 

Medicare and/or Medicaid rules. Efforts will be aimed at preventing instances of bed 

sores, dehydration, and nutrition problems. The following are new approaches aimed at 

improving quality of care: facilities that have repeat offenses will face sanctions without a 

grace period; inspections will be conducted more frequently for repeat offenders without 

decreasing inspections at other facilities; inspections will be staggered; a set amount of 

inspections will be conducted on weekends; and efforts will be focused on facilities within 

chains that have a record of non-compliance. 

In conjunction with the Secretary’s report to Congress, the President announced a new 

nursing home care initiative to provide enhanced protections and to target needed 

improvement in nursing home care. Proposed actions include checking criminal 

backgrounds of nursing home workers, establishing a national registry of employees 

convicted of abusing patients, targeting nursing home chains with poor records, cutting off 

inspection funds to States with poor records of citing substandard quality of care, 

publishing annual nursing home surveys on the Internet, increasing Federal oversight of 

State inspections, providing additional training to State officials, changing the survey 

schedule to make them more unpredictable, increasing the number of night and weekend 

surveys, and re-authorizing the Ombudsman program in the Older Americans Act. 

One week after the President’s initiative, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) 

published a report examining the quality of care in 1,370 California nursing homes that 

were inspected from 1995 to 1998. They found 30 percent of the homes had violations 

that caused death or life-threatening harm to residents, or had understated the frequency 

of poor care by falsifying medical records. As a result of this report, the US Senate 

Special Committee on Aging, chaired by Senator Charles Grassley, held hearings in July 

1998 to discuss the findings on the quality of care in nursing homes. 

METHODOLOGY 

This inspection is based on information gathered from four different sources: OSCAR 

data, a review of individual State survey procedures, interviews with State survey and 

certification directors, and State survey and certification surveyors. We looked for 

consistencies between the data and the observations of the insiders we interviewed. We 

selected a purposive sample of ten States: New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, 

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and Tennessee. These States have 

comprehensive survey and certification programs and represent 55.8 percent of the 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 11 OEI-02-98-00330 
nation’s total skilled nursing beds. In addition, they represent 56 percent ($23 billion) of 

Medicaid institutional long-term care expenditures in 1996. The purposive sample 

represents States of various sizes in different parts of the country. 

OSCAR Data 

The Online Survey Certification and Reporting System (OSCAR) is the system HCFA 

uses in its survey of Medicare and Medicaid providers to monitor State agency and 

provider performance. OSCAR contains data for the current and 3 previous standard 

surveys. The second part of OSCAR is information generated by the surveyors based on 

deficiencies. The Federal regulations detailing survey requirements are classified into 17 

major categories. We analyzed three of these categories which could determine poor 

quality of care depending on their scope and severity. Resident behavior and facility 

practices includes the areas of restraints, abuse and staff treatment of residents; quality if 

life includes the residents ability to make decisions about his or her daily activities and the 

nursing home’s accommodation of those needs; and quality of care includes the technical 

ability of the nursing home to prevent and treat the medical conditions of the residents. 

We looked at those substandard quality of care deficiencies repeated over the last four 

standard surveys. We also looked at OSCAR complaint data specifically at complaints of 

abuse. We compared complaints of abuse filed from January 1997 to July 1998 to abuse 

deficiencies in the most current survey. The direct relationship between abuse codes in the 

deficiency and complaint tables allowed us to look closely at the scope of abuse and 

examine enforcement patterns and outcomes. 

Since information in the OSCAR database is constantly being updated, we downloaded 

OSCAR data on August 4, 1998. In all cases we compared our 10 sample States to 

aggregate national data both for deficiencies and complaints. 

Procedures Review 

We requested each State survey and certification director to send us any written 

procedures, as well as any other relevant documentation, to obtain an overall 

understanding of the survey and certification process. We reviewed procedures and other 

State specific documentation from the eight State survey and certification agencies that 

submitted information. We examined this information for any additional State procedures 

that were not included in the Federal survey and certification guidelines. 

Interviews 

We also conducted a total of thirty structured interviews; three interviews in each of the 

ten sample States, one with the State survey and certification director or a designee, and 

two with State surveyors within each State. The two State surveyors were selected 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 12 OEI-02-98-00330 
randomly from a list of at least ten surveyors submitted by the State director. During 

these interviews, we obtained information about the State survey and certification program 

structure, the processes utilized to monitor quality of care, how deficiencies are addressed, 

and the satisfaction of State survey and certification directors and surveyors with the 

process. 

We selected both directors and surveyors for their different perspectives on the survey and 

certification process. We compared the information provided by the directors to 

information provided by surveyors. In our analysis we paid special attention to consensus 

within and among the groups. 

This inspection was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for 

Inspections issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

FINDINGS 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 13 OEI-02-98-00330 
Generally mandatory surveys are performed timely and 

follow the prescribed process 

Timely surveys 

Based on OSCAR data over the last four standard surveys, all sample States completed 97 

percent of standard surveys for all nursing homes in the mandated time frame of 9 to 15 

months. An average of 3 percent of standard surveys were conducted below 9 months, 

while an average of 2 percent were conducted above 15 months. 

Survey protocol 

All State survey and certification directors and surveyors report using HCFA guidelines 

that outline the protocol for the implementation of nursing home surveys. The HCFA 

survey protocol “provides instructions, check lists, and other tools for use both in 

preparation for the survey and when surveyors are on-site performing the survey. Survey 

protocols are to be used by all surveyors to measure compliance with Federal 

requirements.” The following description of the survey process is based upon a consensus 

of State directors and surveyors responses. 

Entrance conference 

During the entrance conference, the team leader meets with nursing home administration, 

introduces the survey team, discusses the purpose of the visit, and requests all necessary 

paperwork. The survey team tours the facility and makes observations about the quality 

of resident care and the nursing home’s overall condition. During this initial tour, 

surveyors talk to residents and start to select residents for the interview and medical 

record review portion of the survey. The initial tour also helps surveyors to determine 

whether their pre-survey concerns found while examining data from prior surveys, 

complaints, and long-term care Ombudsman discussions continue to be concerns. 

Interviews 

Many surveyors believe that an accurate picture cannot be formalized until they tour a 

nursing home and meet the residents. The HCFA guidelines require surveyors to select a 

“case-mix stratified sample of facility residents in order to assess compliance with the 

resident-centered long term care requirements” based on findings from previous surveys, 

Ombudsman information, and surveyor observations. Thus, residents are selected and 

interviewed based upon many different factors. Many surveyors feel the shift from former 

“paperwork” surveys, where there was little contact with residents or nursing home staff, 

to current resident and outcome oriented surveys, as a result of the Nursing Home Reform 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 14 OEI-02-98-00330 
Act in 1995, has improved the survey process. 

In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the facility, surveyors report they will 

also interview anyone on the nursing home staff who can discuss the treatment and the 

activities of the residents and answer their quality of care concerns. In addition to staff, 

family members also provide beneficial information to the surveyors. 

Exit conference 

All standard surveys close with the exit conference where surveyors present their findings 

to the nursing home. State survey and certification directors and surveyors report that 

deficient areas are noted although the scope and severity of the deficiency may or may not 

be discussed at the exit conference. The nursing home can provide additional information 

to refute potentially deficient areas. At the conclusion of the meeting, the survey team 

fields questions about the standard survey process or their findings. All surveyors list the 

survey team, the nursing home administrator, the Ombudsman, and the resident council, as 

groups who usually attend the exit conference. 

Final survey report 

All State survey and certification directors and surveyors remark that the final survey 

report is a collaborative effort. It is a result of the survey team convening to discuss the 

deficiency list and agreeing on scope and severity designations. The survey report may 

then be reviewed by State regional supervisors or a centrally located enforcement 

committee in the State. Deficiencies may be added, deleted, or substantially changed at 

any time during the review process. Almost all State survey and certification directors and 

surveyors say that deficiencies noted by surveyors are seldom removed from the final data, 

although they may be changed after discussion. The most frequently cited reason for any 

deficiency change or removal is a failure to meet the principles of documentation, a 

requirement so that the deficiency can be supported on appeal or during enforcement 

proceedings. 

Nursing home response 

If deficiencies have been cited, most State survey and certification directors and surveyors 

say nursing homes must complete a plan of correction within 10 days of receiving the 

survey report. The plan of correction addresses, in four distinct parts, how each 

deficiency will be rectified and how soon the corrections will take effect. Almost all 

directors and surveyors indicate there is a mandated time frame to correct deficiencies. 

This time frame varies, depending on the severity of each deficiency. Within two days of 

receiving notice of an “immediate jeopardy” deficiency, the nursing home must correct the 

problem or penalties will take effect. Deficiencies with no immediate jeopardy may have a 

15 day correction window before penalties take effect. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 15 OEI-02-98-00330 
It is incumbent upon the State to verify that the facility corrects any deficiencies. States 

vary on the scope and severity of deficiencies that require surveyor revisits. Only one 

State revisits nursing homes for all deficiencies, but all States revisit in person, as required, 

for deficiencies that meet certain scope and severity requirements. For those deficiencies 

that do not require a revisit, a letter or phone call to the State agency suffice as proof of 

correction. 

Additional State requirements 

While all States report using HCFA guidelines from the State Operations Manual, seven 

Directors report that they have State specific criteria in addition to HCFA guidelines. In 

practice, the more stringent of the two are implemented. Our review of the State specific 

requirements submitted by the State Directors found they include, but are not limited to, 

State licensure requirements for nursing homes. For example, one State specifies nursing 

staff resident ratios at various shifts throughout the day and night and this is measured 

during the survey. Another State requires measuring water temperature to prevent patient 

burns. 

Some States have additional databases and information sources. For example, one State 

has a web site for nursing home consumers that numerically rates nursing homes. The site 

includes the survey date, administration, nursing, resident rights, food service, and 

environment, totaling all categories for an overall score. Another State developed a 

specific database that logs information such as inspection information, license status at 

notice of violation, license status after hearings, and quality assurance licensure logs. This 

database is useful because it is tailored to the individual State’s needs and the information 

is not compiled in OSCAR. 

Complaints procedures 

All States are required to “establish procedures and maintain adequate staff to investigate 

complaints of nursing home violations.” All State survey and certification directors and 

surveyors report the existence of a complaint process to address the complaints received 

concerning nursing home practices. All States log incoming phone calls which are then 

directed to the appropriate region or staff to follow up on the complaint. In some States 

separate complaint departments handle all surveys. Complaints are ranked according to 

severity of the allegation. In all cases of immediate jeopardy, an investigation must be 

initiated promptly. States vary in their response to the remainder of the calls. The balance 

of the complaints are handled anywhere from seven to 45 days. Some complaints are 

rolled into the next scheduled survey if the complaint does not warrant an abbreviated 

survey and/or the surveyors are approaching the next scheduled survey. 

According to OSCAR data almost half (44 percent) of the national complaints reported to 

the survey agency from January 1997 to July 1998 are from residents or families of 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 16 OEI-02-98-00330 
residents. A quarter are from employees or ex-employees of nursing homes, 15 percent 

are anonymous and 11 percent are some other non-specified source. Only 5 percent of 

complaints come from Ombudsmen. Figure I below displays the sources of nursing home 

complaints nationwide. 

Figure I 

Sources of Complaints Nationwide 

However, there are 

significant weaknesses in 

the process 

Predictability 

Although all States report that nursing home standard surveys are unannounced, almost all 

directors and surveyors believe that facilities can roughly predict the survey start date. 

The OSCAR data for three consecutive surveys indicates that 11 percent of nursing homes 

are surveyed within a two week time period of the previous survey. Since nursing home 

administrators know the Federal standard survey window is between 9 and 15 months, and 

also realize that the outcome of their latest standard survey will dictate the following 

year’s start date, those facilities with quality of care issues know their survey will fall 

closer to the 9 month end of the survey spectrum, and those with fewer deficiencies closer 

to the 15 month end of the survey spectrum. One State director declared “adhering to the 

Federal 12 month average requirement makes it extremely difficult to be totally 

unpredictable.” 

A few States note that facilities have been alerted about approaching surveys by friends 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 17 OEI-02-98-00330 
operating local hotel accommodations. Some surveyors mention that conference rooms at 

nursing homes are sometimes prepared in anticipation of the survey team’s arrival. Most 

often, facilities will simply compare the survey start dates from previous years in order to 

estimate when the upcoming survey will occur. 

States report nursing homes anticipate their annual standard survey and often modify their 

normal daily procedures to reduce potential deficiencies. In one example, facilities 

increase the number of staff on certain shifts. To alleviate this practice, directors and 

surveyors suggest more randomness in the survey schedule. One director says that 

surveys are started for all nursing homes in chain organizations on the same day to prevent 

staff shifts among nursing homes in the chain. Directors and surveyors voice concerns 

about whether or not standard surveys represent an accurate reflection of quality of care in 

nursing home. One surveyor notes, “annual standard surveys are only a snapshot in time. 

We are not seeing the true picture of these facilities throughout the year.” 

Most States say they do not begin or continue standard surveys on the weekend. One 

director notes that their union rules prohibit standard surveys on weekend hours. 

However one State has a requirement that 20 percent of surveys in each region be on the 

weekend or off hours. In addition, many States report not starting standard surveys in the 

evening hours, but almost all States cite a policy of continuing standard surveys into the 

evening hours. The policy of continuing surveys into evening hours seems to mainly be a 

function of the surveyors’ extended work day schedules. 

Questions often arise about the quality of care in nursing facilities during the weekend and 

evening hours. One director addressed this concern and replied, “we need to change the 

Health Care Financing Administration guidelines to require more night and weekend 

visits.” State survey and certification directors and surveyors did indicate that they 

conduct complaint surveys during weekend or evening hours, particularly if the complaint 

originated during these hours. Depending on the scope and severity of the complaint 

received, surveyors may initiate complaint surveys at any time of the day or week. 

Abuse complaints 

From January 1997 to July 1998, 4,707 abuse complaints were reported by friends, family 

members of residents, or nursing home staff in the ten sample States. As defined by the 

Federal guidelines, abuse complaints and deficiencies violate "the residents right to be free 

from verbal, sexual, physical and mental abuse, corporal punishment, and voluntary 

seclusion." These complaints involved almost one third or 2,306 nursing homes in all ten 

States. In some situations, multiple complaints were filed against the same nursing home. 

These 4,707 complaints are divided between substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints. 

In order to substantiate a complaint a surveyor must establish that the action occurred. 

Abuse is often difficult to cite due to constraints placed on the surveyor. Abuse must be 

"observed" by the surveyors rather than recounted by the resident or family member. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 18 OEI-02-98-00330 
Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 19 OEI-02-98-00330

Because of this limitation, many abuse complaints go without action taken against the

nursing home. 

illegitimate but rather that the surveyor could not authenticate the actions. 

abuse complaints in the sample States, 1,524 (32 percent) are substantiated while 3,183

(68 percent) are unsubstantiated.

There are 18 possible action codes that complaints could receive. 

categories include: termination, plans of correction, denial of payment for new admissions,

fines, civil monetary penalties, license revocation, provisional licenses, receivership,

special monitoring, injunction, suspension of Medicare payments, no action, or "other". 

Despite the differences between substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints, the number

of complaints in both categories that conclude with no action, plans of correction, or

"other" remain comparable. 

action plans of correction, or "other" totals 99 percent of the total complaints. 

Notwithstanding that substantiated complaints are confirmed by surveyors, 92 percent of

them conclude with no action, plans of correction, or "other". 

below.

 Figure II Figure III

Complaint Outcomes

When looking at all abuse complaints, two percent were reported after the standard survey

cited the nursing home with an abuse deficiency. 

in a particular nursing home, the outcome of the complaint investigation is confined to the

three courses of action mentioned previously. 

Unsubstantiated complaints do not indicate that the complaints are

Of the 4,707

Possible action

Unsubstantiated abuse complaints that conclude with no

See Figures II and III

Despite the documented history of abuse

No action was taken in 71 percent of the
complaints, 14 percent were resolved with a plan of correction without sanction, and 12 

percent fell into the “other” category. 

Enforcement 

The OSCAR data shows 900 nursing homes have been cited with the same deficiencies 

over the past four contiguous surveys, representing 13 percent of all homes in the sample 

States. The number of nursing homes with repeat deficiencies ranges from 5 in New York 

to 453 in California. Table I shows the number of nursing homes in sample States with 

repeat deficiencies. There are a total of 1,359 repeat deficiencies cited among sixty-three 

different deficiency types. When we looked at the top 10 repeat deficiencies, we found 

that five are in the substandard quality of care categories. See table II below for the 

number of sample State nursing homes affected by the top 10 repeat deficiencies. 

Table I 

The Number of Nursing Homes in Sample States 

with Repeat Deficiencies over Four Surveys 

State Number of Nursing Percent of Nursing Homes Number of Repeat 

Homes with Repeat Deficiencies with Repeat Deficiencies Deficiencies 

CA 453 35% 769 

FL 57 08% 74 

IL 134 21% 185 

MA 10 02% 21 

NJ 12 04% 13 

NY 5 01% 6 

OH 76 09% 94 

PA 29 04% 31 

TN 13 05% 17 

TX 111 10% 149 

Source: OSCAR Data 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 20 OEI-02-98-00330 
These nursing homes are given the opportunity to correct their deficiencies without penalty with a 

plan of correction. The nursing home submits an action plan to the State agency that addresses 

how each deficiency will be corrected and how soon the correction will take place. The State 

agency either re-visits the facility to confirm the correction or phones or writes to the facility for 

proof of correction. 

Table II 

Top 10 Repeat Deficiencies 

Deficiency Facilities in Facilities 

Sample States Nationwide 

Facility must store, prepare, distribute, 162 254 

and serve food under sanitary conditions 

Facility must develop comprehensive 156 221 

care plans for each resident 

Facility promotes care that maintains or 142 174 

enhances dignity 

Rooms measure 80 square feet 100 205 

Facility must make a comprehensive 95 187 

assessment of a resident’s needs 

Facility must provide necessary 91 151 

housekeeping and maintenance services 

Clinical records meet professional 84 100 

standards 

Facility should have policies that 68 80 

accommodate need and preferences 

Facility is free of accident hazards 64 99 

Drug regimen free of unnecessary drugs 33 58 

Source: OSCAR Data 

This data about repeat deficiencies supports the opinions of half of the State directors and 

three-fourths of surveyors indicating that current enforcement measures are questionable. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 21 OEI-02-98-00330 
State survey and certification directors and surveyors express concern that civil monetary 

penalties, as currently administered, do not compel facilities to observe Federal regulations 

and are insufficient to influence big facilities or nursing home conglomerates. 

Additionally, civil monetary penalties are not imposed immediately, allowing facilities to 

remain non-compliant for longer periods of time. 

State survey and certification directors and surveyors also cite concerns with provisions 

that allow facilities the opportunity to avoid penalties and comply with regulations after 

the citation of deficiencies. One State director notes these provisions are “contrary to 

perpetual adherence to regulations.” Another director expresses the “need to break the 

cycle on non-compliant facilities” and is concerned that nursing homes are “not held 

accountable until there is actual harm to the resident.” Most State survey and certification 

directors and surveyors agree that civil monetary penalties could be effective, but are 

presently not enforced on a timely basis. 

A few surveyors suggest that previous enforcement efforts were more successful. One 

surveyor states that the enforcement system functioned more effectively when facilities did 

not have as many opportunities to correct deficiencies. Another surveyor adds that 

withholding payments to a deficient facility, referred to as vender hold enforcement, was 

much more effective because facilities would correct their deficiencies almost immediately. 

Some surveyors believe the current enforcement process allows deficient facilities far too 

many chances without sufficient enforcement. 

Two different opinions were expressed concerning the compliance function of the State 

survey and certification office: collaborative and punitive. Those who advocate a 

collaborative relationship seek to maintain the highest possible quality of life and care at 

nursing facilities by working with the facility. One State director remarks that nursing 

facilities are not negligent but simply “do not know how to stay out of trouble.” Another 

surveyor adds that the purpose of the survey is “not to be punitive. The object of the 

survey should not be to close a facility, but to help it strive for compliance.” Proponents 

of this opinion believe that surveyors need to better educate facility personnel, and 

constant communication is more effective than harsh penalties forcing nursing home 

closures. 

Other surveyors and State directors believe that policing efforts are most beneficial to 

nursing home residents. Some State survey and certification directors and surveyors 

maintain that leniency from the State leads to repeat deficiencies in nursing homes. One 

surveyor says “enforcement is the number one means to an end.” Another respondent 

feels surveyors are the true resident advocates, and no one is in a better position to really 

improve the lives of residents. Many States suggest greater vigilance of nursing home 

conglomerates who are able to move across State lines and reestablish themselves without 

a prior record of impropriety from other States. Nursing home lawyers utilize legal 

loopholes to place financial interests above resident well being. One surveyor notes that 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 22 OEI-02-98-00330 
“valid deficiencies go by the wayside based on a legal technicality.” 

OSCAR data 

Most surveyors and more than half of directors are satisfied with OSCAR data but 

propose changes. During the pre-survey phase of a standard survey, OSCAR data from 

the previous survey are reviewed and specific quality of care issues are frequently 

targeted. At the start of the nursing home tour, surveyors may find a very different 

situation from the previous survey. The quality of care at the nursing home may have 

drastically changed for the better or worse. Therefore, surveyors suggest using OSCAR 

data in conjunction with other tools to obtain an accurate view of quality of care. 

“OSCAR is only one part of the quality of care story”, one surveyor said. A director 

notes that OSCAR is a useful instrument to help focus a survey team during the presurvey, but doesn’t indicate quality of care when analyzed alone. State survey and 

certification directors and surveyors are also concerned that OSCAR data is not user 

friendly, accurate, streamlined, accessible, or timely. Another director said, “OSCAR 

generated reports are cumbersome and time consuming.” The consensus of the State 

survey and certification directors and surveyors is that OSCAR is difficult to use. 

Staff resources may be inadequate in some cases 

Surveyor staffing 

The overall number of surveyors varies by States, thereby affecting the number of standard 

surveys each survey team is capable of conducting each year. The average number of 

standard surveys per team is 19 a year based on four person survey teams. However, the 

range of standard surveys among the 10 sample States falls between 12 and 26 nursing 

homes a year. We are not in a position to judge the adequacy of surveyor staffing nor 

discern what is the ideal number of surveys per survey team. 

Although States complete their mandatory standard surveys, surveyors are also 

responsible to survey nursing homes where complaints were generated or when follow-up 

visits are required for nursing homes with deficiencies. Surveyor constraints may be a 

cause for concern for two reasons. First, States with a high survey per team ratio may be 

adversely affecting quality of care in nursing homes because of time constraints. Second, 

revisiting deficient nursing homes to ensure compliance or follow-up on complaints could 

also be adversely affecting quality of care because there may not be enough surveyors to 

handle the work load. Some States have surveyors dedicated solely to long term care 

while other States divide the surveyor’s responsibilities among all surveyed facilities. We 

allowed for this fact in these numbers. See Table III below for a list of surveyor staff 

dedicated to nursing home surveys in sample States. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 23 OEI-02-98-00330 
Table III 

Surveyor Staffing in 10 States 

State # of # of # of # of Nursing # of Surveys # of Residents 

Surveyors Nursing Residents Homes to per 4 Surveyor to Surveyors 

Homes Surveyors Team 

CA 228 1309 100,391 5.74 22.96 440.3 

FL 128 732 68,969 5.72 22.88 538.8 

IL 216 650 66,187 3.01 12.04 306.4 

MA 80 524 50,542 6.55 26.20 631.8 

NJ 73 327 44,472 4.48 17.92 609.2 

NY 139 658 112,472 4.73 18.93 809.2 

OH 192 862 75,613 4.49 17.96 393.8 

PA 123 776 85,382 6.31 25.23 694.2 

TN 51 278 28,630 5.45 21.80 561.4 

TX 328 1077 72,996 3.28 13.13 222.5 

Source: OSCAR Data 

Surveyor teams 

All State survey and certification directors and surveyors have multi-disciplinary teams 

with at least one registered nurse, as required by HCFA. Social workers, nutritionists, 

sanitarians, pharmacists, consultants, and health care generalists often complete the survey 

team composition. One State is moving toward teams comprised solely of registered 

nurses with other professionals available as consultants. Nine States report the survey 

team composition fluctuates based upon the characteristics at particular nursing homes. 

Surveyors listed the facility size, resident characteristics, facility history, and surveyor 

availability, as factors that determine survey team composition. 

Many surveyors note the dedication and competency of the surveyor staff as a strength in 

the survey process. Surveyors believe the varied experience and background of staff is 

important for successful teams. One surveyor describes the staff as “unbiased people who 

are dedicated to change,” while other surveyors emphasize “excellent” supervisors who 

“respect and listen to surveyors.” 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 24 OEI-02-98-00330 
However, three State directors report high turnover rates for surveyors, and half of the 

directors acknowledge difficulties replacing staff once they leave. Reasons for this 

difficulty include poor salary scales for surveyors, geographic constraints, and extensive 

training periods. State directors mention a variety of specialties are difficult to replace 

such as nurses, pharmacists, and social workers. 

Surveyor training 

All State surveyors complete Federal training in HCFA headquarters in order to pass the 

required Standard Minimum Qualifications Test (SMQT). While new surveyor training is 

consistent across sample States, on-going training ranges from no training up to 100 hours 

a year. Most on-going training consists of in-service staff meetings facilitated internally or 

by outside consultants. Many surveyors note a lack of time to schedule on-going training, 

while others cite a decrease in HCFA facilitated training as problems. Some surveyors 

note the need for more HCFA training which would provide a forum for surveyors to 

discuss issues and policy with other surveyors in different States. 

Coordination with Ombudsman is not working effectively 

We examined abuse complaints in the National Ombudsman Reporting System (NORS), 

the data collected by each State Ombudsman Program. NORS data shows 243 abuse 

complaints a month in sample States, while OSCAR data shows only 31 abuse complaints 

a month referred by the Ombudsmen to the State survey and certification agency. This is 

13 percent of the total Ombudsmen abuse complaints per month. Some States may have 

agencies other than the survey and certification agency designated to investigate abuse 

complaints. Ombudsman programs generally investigate and work to resolve complaints 

brought to their attention. Compared to other sources, the Ombudsmen have referred 

only 5 percent of the abuse complaints to the survey programs in sample States. The 

number in each of the States varies as shown in Table IV below. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 25 OEI-02-98-00330 
Table IV 

Ombudsmen Abuse Complaints by Sample State 

State Ombudsmen Abuse % Of Ombudsmen Abuse Total Abuse 

Complaints Complaints To State’s Total Complaints 

Abuse Complaints 

CA 169 18% 961 

FL 0 0% 124 

IL 9 2% 476 

MA 8 3% 314 

NJ 1 3% 38 

NY 5 2% 286 

OH 37 13% 277 

PA 15 10% 144 

TN 15 5% 282 

TX 65 2% 3299 

Total 324 5% 6201 

Source: OSCAR Data 

Although State survey and certification directors and surveyors report that State 

Ombudsmen provide useful information to the surveyor and all surveyors and State 

directors indicate that Ombudsmen are contacted either before entering, or immediately 

upon entering, the facility, surveyors report that Ombudsmen are not always available at 

the time of the survey. One surveyor said, “they are always invited and if available, they 

come.” Another surveyor said, “I haven’t seen an Ombudsman in years.” Surveyors 

report that Ombudsman also provide information regarding the facility and about specific 

residents and this information is utilized during the pre-survey process to help select 

residents for the interview and medical records to review. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity 26 OEI-02-98-00330 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

The resident-centered long-term care requirements of the nursing home survey are

essential to guarantee the quality of care in nursing homes. Clearly some major problems

need to be addressed. Our findings support and elaborate on the Health Care Financing

Administration’s (HCFA) initiative to strengthen the enforcement efforts by: 

< making them more timely and effective,

< changing the survey schedule to make surveys more unpredictable, 

< increasing the number of night and weekend surveys,

< increasing the number of surveys at nursing homes with chronic quality of care

problems, and 

< focusing on specific problems such as pressure sores, dehydration, and 

malnutrition. 

These initiatives, if carried out completely, appear to be responsive to most of the 

problems in this report as well as our companion report “Nursing Home Survey and 

Certification: Deficiency Trends.” 

In light of our findings in this report, additional action is needed. We recommend that 

HCFA: 

< evaluate the surveyor staffing in each State to assure that adequate staffing is 

available to complete all standard surveys, follow up surveys, and respond to 

complaints, 

< provide additional training to State surveyors, 

< provide a forum for State surveyors to meet and discuss common issues, and 

< facilitate better coordination with the Ombudsman program. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

We received comments on the draft report from HCFA, the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Administration on Aging (AoA), and informally 

from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation (ASL). The HCFA and AoA generally concur 

with our recommendations. The AoA and the ASL provided suggestions for clarifications 

of the text which have been incorporated into the final report. 

The ASPE expressed some concern about the ability of OSCAR data to assess quality of 

care in nursing homes. We recognize the limitations of OSCAR but used it as only one 

indicator of quality. We are happy to re-emphasize here what we say in our report that 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

27 
OSCAR data should not be looked at independently. In this report we used it in 

combination with the views of nursing home surveyors and State Directors. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

28
APPENDIX A 

Definitions of Substandard Quality of Care Deficiencies 

“Resident Behavior and Facility Practices” Category 

Deficiency - (Ftag) Definition 

F0221 Resident has the right to be free from any physical restraint for 

purposes of discipline or convenience. 

F0222 Resident has the right to be free from any chemical restraint for 

purposes of discipline or convenience. 

F0223 Resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical and 

mental abuse, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion. 

F0224 Facility must have written policies and procedures that prohibit 

abuse and neglect. 

F0225 Facility may not employ persons who have been found guilty of 

abuse. 

“Quality of Life” Category 

Deficiency - (Ftag) Definition 

F0240 Facility must promote/enhances quality of life. 

F0241 Facility must promote care that maintains or enhances dignity. 

F0242 Resident has the right to choose activities, schedules, interact with 

members of community, and make choices about aspects of life in 

the facility. 

F0243 Resident has the right to organize and participate in resident 

groups. 

F0244 Facility must listen and respond to resident or family group. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

29 
F0245 Resident has the right to participate in social, religious, and 

community activities. 

F0246 Facility should have policies that accommodate residents’ needs and 

preferences. 

F0247 Resident to receive notice before room or roommate in the facility 

is changed. 

F0248 Facility is to provide ongoing program of activities that fit resident. 

F0249 Facilities director must be fully qualified. 

F0250 Facility must provide medically related social services. 

F0251 Facility with more than 120 beds must employ a qualified social 

worker on a full time basis. 

F0252 Facility must provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike 

environment. 

F0253 Facility must provide housekeeping and maintenance services 

necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly and comfortable interior. 

F0254 Facility must provide clean bed and bath linens that are in good 

condition. 

F0255 Facility must provide private closet space in each resident’s room. 

F0256 Facility must provide adequate and comfortable lighting levels in all 

areas. 

F0257 Facility must provide comfortable and safe temperature levels. 

F0258 Facility must provide comfortable sound levels. 

“Quality of Care” Category 

Deficiency - (Ftag) Definition 

physical, mental, and psychosocial well being. 

F0309 Facility to provide necessary care for the highest practicable 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

30 
F0310 Activities of daily living do not decline unless unavoidable. 

F0311 Resident is given treatment to improve abilities. 

F0312 Activities of daily living care is provided for dependent residents. 

F0313 Resident receive treatment to maintain hearing and vision. 

F0314 Proper treatment to prevent or treat pressure sores. 

F0315 Resident is not catheterized unless unavoidable. 

F0316 Appropriate treatment for incontinent resident. 

F0317 No reduction of range of motion unless unavoidable. 

F0318 Resident with limited range of motion receives appropriate 

treatment. 

F0319 Appropriate treatment for mental or psychosocial problems. 

F0320 No development of mental problems unless unavoidable. 

F0321 No naso-gastric tube unless unavoidable. 

F0322 Proper care and services for resident with naso-gastric tube. 

F0323 Facility is free of accident hazards. 

F0324 Resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to 

prevent accidents. 

F0325 Facility must maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status 

unless unavoidable. 

F0326 Resident receives therapeutic diet when required. 

F0327 Facility must provide sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper 

hydration and health. 

F0328 Facility must ensure that proper treatment and care is provided. 

F0329 Each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

31 
F0330 No use of antipsychotic drugs except when necessary. 

F0331 Residents who use antipsychotic drugs receive gradual dose 

reductions. 

F0332 Facility must ensure that it is free of medication error rates of five 

percent or greater. 

F0333 Residents are free of any significant medication errors. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

32 
APPENDIX B 

Comments on the Draft Report

In this appendix, we present in full the comments form the Health Care Financing 

Administration, the Administration on Aging, and the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation. 

Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

33 
Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

34 
Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

35 
Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

36 
Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

37 
Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

38 
Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

39 
Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

40 
Survey and Certification: Overall Capacity OEI-02-98-00330 

41