F603 in Connecticut. Pick another state for the same tag.
Against expectation — 2025
Connecticut cites F603 more often than its own record predicts
Versus expected share15.15×
15.15 times the share F603 takes of citations nationally.
Share of Connecticut citations0.68%
Of every deficiency written in Connecticut in 2025, this is the portion that was F603.
Connecticut0.68%
National0.05%
Share of all citations that were F603.
Each state is measured against its own expected share, not against other states.
In the surveyor’s words
What Connecticut surveyors wrote
F603 findings written in Connecticut, one from each severity band recorded here, most serious first.
Severity is as the surveyor wrote it. Some findings had already been corrected before the survey.
G · Actual harm, isolatedJuly 24, 2025
Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident #3) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure a resident was not involuntarily secluded and had access to all facility locations. The findings include:Resident #3's diagnoses included encounter for orthopedic aftercare (cervical laminectomy), type 2 diabetes, and schizoaffective disorder bipolar type.Observation and interview on 7/16/2025 at 12:38 PM identified that Resident #3 was not visible from the doorway. He/she was observed behind a privacy curtain, lacked any engaging activities such as television, radio, or personal activity, and lay in bed silently. …
E · No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternJuly 15, 2026
Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, facility assessment and interviews for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #2, 44 and 76) reviewed for dementia, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record included documentation, by the resident's physician, that the resident met the clinical criteria for placement in the secured/locked area, documentation that reflected the resident and resident representative's involvement in the decision for placement in the secured/locked area, documentation reflecting whether placement in the secured/locked area was the least restrictive approach that was reasonable to protect the resident and assure his/her health and safety, and ongoing documentation of the review and revision of the resident's care plan, including… …
B · No harm, potential for minimal, patternJuly 12, 2018
Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for 9 of 54 residents (Resident #1, 6, 22, 57, 71, 72, 79, 100 and 126) who reside on a secure (locked) unit, the facility failed to identify the clinical criteria for, and/or document the resident/representative inclusion in, the decision for placement on the unit, and/or failed to document that information for independent egress had been provided. The findings include:
1. Resident #1's [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. The elopement risk evaluation dated 6/29/18 identified Resident #1 was not identified at risk to wander.
2. Resident #6's [DIAGNOSES REDACTED].#6 was not identified at risk to wander.
3. Resident #22's [DIAGNOSES REDACTED].#22 was not identified at risk to wander.
4. Resident #57's [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. …
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction