BANGOR, ME - Federal inspectors documented serious breakdowns in resident protection protocols at Maine Veterans Home - Bangor during a March 2025 complaint investigation, revealing staff waited weeks to report witnessed abuse and failed to investigate unexplained injuries.
Delayed Reporting of Witnessed Abuse
The most serious violations centered on a certified nursing assistant who allegedly witnessed physical and verbal abuse of residents but failed to report it for approximately three to four weeks. According to inspection records, CNA1 reported on February 20, 2025, that she had observed CNA2 being physically and verbally abusive toward three residents over a period spanning several weeks. The facility's incident report to the Division of Licensing and Certification noted that CNA1 stated "this has been going on for approximately 3 weeks to a month and did not report it."
This delay allowed CNA2 to work 36 additional shifts while the alleged abuse continued. The inspection narrative documents that three residents were subjected to this treatment during this extended period. When the Director of Nursing Services interviewed CNA1 about the delayed reporting, the staff member stated she had told her charge nurse about the incidents. However, the charge nurse RN1 denied being informed until the morning of February 20, 2025.
Federal regulations require nursing facilities to report allegations of abuse immediately to supervisors, with subsequent reports to administration within two hours if serious bodily injury is involved. The facility's own policy mandates that staff report actual or suspected abuse to their supervisor immediately, with follow-up reports to the administrator and director of nursing services. Licensed staff must also report to the Department of Health and Human Services and Adult Protective Services within 24 hours under Maine law.
The failure to report these incidents promptly violated multiple layers of required protections. When abuse allegations surface, immediate reporting serves several critical functions: it triggers protective interventions to separate alleged perpetrators from potential victims, initiates formal investigations while evidence and memories remain fresh, and allows regulatory oversight to ensure proper handling. Each day of delay potentially exposes vulnerable residents to continued harm and compromises the integrity of any subsequent investigation.
During the interview documented on March 11, 2025, CNA1 told the Director of Nursing Services that she was afraid of CNA2, highlighting how interpersonal dynamics among staff can create barriers to reporting. The facility re-educated CNA1 about immediate reporting requirements, but this corrective action came only after the delayed reporting had already occurred. The inspection revealed the facility did not file its reportable incident with state regulators until February 26, 2025, six days after CNA1 finally came forward.
Unexplained Injury Left Uninvestigated
Inspectors identified a second major reporting failure involving a resident who developed a significant unexplained bruise. On December 22, 2024, staff documented finding a bruise on the back of Resident 3's right hip and upper thigh area measuring 15 centimeters by 7.5 centimeters—approximately six inches by three inches. A nursing note from December 23 indicated physicians ordered an x-ray of the right hip and upper thigh due to this injury.
Federal regulations classify unexplained injuries as potential indicators of abuse and require facilities to investigate how such injuries occurred. The facility's own policy specifically lists "unexplained bruises or other injuries" as reasons to suspect abuse has taken place, requiring staff to bring such findings to a supervisor's attention immediately.
Despite these clear requirements, the clinical record contained no evidence that facility staff investigated how this substantial bruise occurred. When a Unit Manager RN3 was interviewed on March 12, 2025, the nurse confirmed that this injury of unknown origin was neither reported to state regulators nor internally investigated.
Bruises of this size do not occur without cause. In healthcare settings, unexplained injuries warrant immediate attention because they may indicate falls, rough handling during transfers or care provision, aggressive interactions with other residents, or intentional harm. The location on the back of the hip and upper thigh suggests the injury could have resulted from impact during a fall, contact with equipment, or physical contact with another person. Without investigation, the facility had no way to determine whether the injury represented an isolated incident, indicated a pattern of rough handling, or suggested environmental hazards requiring correction.
The failure to investigate also meant the facility could not implement preventive measures. If the bruise resulted from a transfer technique problem, staff needed retraining. If it indicated a fall risk, the resident's care plan required updating. If it suggested abuse, immediate protective interventions were necessary. By leaving the injury uninvestigated, the facility allowed whatever caused it to potentially continue unchecked.
Inadequate Response to Sexual Contact Incident
A third major violation involved the facility's handling of a potential sexual abuse situation between residents. The facility's internal fact-finding summary dated February 27, 2025, documented that on January 30, 2025, staff found Resident 5 in Resident 6's room, with Resident 6's pants down and Resident 5's mouth on Resident 6's penis.
On February 14, 2025—15 days later—a registered nurse reported that Resident 5 was being pushed in a wheelchair by Resident 6, and that Resident 5 "cowered into the nurse's station and appeared to be afraid of Resident 6." Only after this second incident did the facility move Resident 6 to another unit.
When interviewed on March 13, 2025, the Director of Nursing Services confirmed the facility failed to notify state regulators of the potential sexual abuse on January 30, 2025. Federal regulations require facilities to report all allegations of abuse, including sexual abuse, to state authorities. This reporting obligation exists regardless of whether the alleged perpetrator is a staff member, another resident, or a visitor.
The situation was further complicated by Resident 5's diagnosis of vascular dementia. The inspection revealed that Resident 5's care plan, updated February 26, 2025, included an approach stating: "If resident displays sexual behaviors, assess resident for signs of behavior changes related to sexual behaviors. If resident appears agitated, anxious, or is crying, redirect resident away from male residents."
However, inspectors found the care plan did not address Resident 5's cognitive ability to engage in consensual sexual activity. When a surveyor reviewed the care plan with RN6 on March 12, 2025, they confirmed it was "not resident centered or updated for an accurate approach due to R5 diagnosis of dementia and inability to consent to sexual activity."
Dementia progressively impairs cognitive functions including judgment, reasoning, and decision-making capacity. Individuals with vascular dementia may experience confusion, difficulty processing information, and impaired ability to understand consequences of actions. These cognitive deficits can eliminate the capacity to provide informed consent to sexual activity. Federal regulations require nursing facilities to protect residents from all forms of abuse, including sexual abuse, regardless of who the perpetrator may be.
The care plan's instruction to "provide privacy" if the resident was "engaging in consensual sexual behavior" failed to account for whether Resident 5 possessed the cognitive capacity to consent. This represented a fundamental gap in care planning that left the resident vulnerable. The fact that Resident 5 later appeared afraid of Resident 6 and sought safety at the nurse's station suggests the earlier sexual contact may not have been wanted, even if Resident 5 lacked the cognitive ability to resist or report it at the time.
Failure to Follow Treatment Orders
Inspectors also documented that the facility failed to follow physician orders for Resident 6, the individual involved in the sexual contact incidents. On October 28, 2024, a physician's assistant ordered that Resident 6's case be presented to a specialist physician (identified in records as Doctor 1) within one month. This order was repeated on December 13, 2024, with instructions to "re-present to DR1 next opportunity."
The orders came in the context of treatment for "hypersexual behaviors" and "antisocial sexual behavior (sexual-associated behavior disruptive to others)." Medical records showed the facility had prescribed medroxyprogesterone, a hormone medication sometimes used to reduce sexually aggressive behaviors, with doses gradually increasing from 2.5 milligrams daily in October to 10 milligrams daily by December.
On March 13, 2025—121 days after the first referral order—inspectors found no evidence the case had ever been presented to the specialist physician as ordered. When Unit Manager RN3 was interviewed, the nurse stated the specialist was no longer available but could provide no evidence of any follow-up with the ordering physician's assistant regarding alternative referral options.
This failure meant Resident 6 did not receive the specialized evaluation ordered by the treating provider. Specialists in behavioral medicine or psychiatry can assess whether medication approaches are appropriate, recommend behavioral interventions, evaluate for underlying conditions contributing to behaviors, and coordinate comprehensive treatment strategies. Without this specialist input, the facility was left managing complex behavioral issues through medication adjustments alone, without the benefit of expert consultation specifically ordered by the treating provider.
Additional Issues Identified
Beyond the major violations detailed above, inspectors documented the facility's abuse prevention and reporting policy, which clearly outlined staff obligations. The policy defined abuse as "the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, punishment that causes or is likely to cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish," and specified that verbal abuse includes "disparaging and/or derogatory terms to residents or their families."
The policy required staff to "intervene immediately to protect the resident(s) in any situation of actual or potential abuse" and to "report actual or suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of property to their supervisor immediately." Despite having clear written policies, the facility's systems failed to ensure staff followed these requirements in practice.
The inspection was conducted as a complaint investigation on March 17, 2025, in response to concerns reported to state regulators. Federal inspectors classified the reporting violations as causing "minimal harm or potential for actual harm," though the failures to report and investigate left residents exposed to ongoing risks. The care planning violation was classified as affecting "few" residents, while the reporting failures affected "some" residents.
Nursing homes serve among society's most vulnerable populations—individuals who often cannot advocate for themselves, may have cognitive impairments limiting their ability to report mistreatment, and depend entirely on facility staff for safety and wellbeing. Federal regulations establish multiple overlapping reporting requirements specifically because of this vulnerability. These requirements create redundant safety nets: staff must report to supervisors, supervisors to administration, and the facility to state regulators. Each reporting layer serves as a backstop in case earlier reports are dismissed or ignored.
When these reporting systems break down—whether through staff fear, inadequate training, poor supervisory response, or administrative inattention—residents lose critical protections. The violations at Maine Veterans Home - Bangor demonstrate how failures at multiple levels can compound: a staff member afraid to report, a charge nurse who may not have received information or failed to act on it, and facility administration that did not ensure timely notification to state authorities. Each breakdown extended the period during which residents remained at risk.
The facility received citations for failing to ensure residents were free from abuse, failing to report abuse allegations and injuries appropriately, failing to investigate an unexplained injury, failing to develop adequate care plans, and failing to follow physician treatment orders. These violations reflected systemic gaps in resident protection rather than isolated incidents.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Maine Veterans Home - Bangor from 2025-03-17 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
💬 Join the Discussion
Comments are moderated. Please keep discussions respectful and relevant to nursing home care quality.