Federal inspectors found the facility failed to protect Resident #14, whose stroke left them unable to communicate beyond basic wants and needs. The Director of Nursing told inspectors the resident "likes to give oral sex" and had been reported for sexual activity "about 4 different times."
"This last incident someone caught [Resident #14] in the act," the DON said during an August 21 interview.
The facility's Administrator acknowledged the resident "had grabbed on female and male staff members and male residents" but admitted having no answers for why sexual behaviors were never addressed in care planning. "I don't feel comfortable answering; it probably should have been," the Administrator said. "We don't have a policy and procedure on it."
The DON told inspectors that because of the resident's stroke, "the resident cannot carry on a conversation." Despite this cognitive impairment, staff allowed the sexual activity to continue without proper safeguards or interventions.
When asked about consent, the DON was clear about the resident's limitations: "I would not say [Resident #14] was capable of giving consent for sex." The resident's representative had given what the DON described as reluctant approval, explaining the representative "wishes the resident wouldn't do it."
But the DON emphasized a critical distinction: "Resident behaviors are not consent for staff to interact with them sexually."
The facility only implemented basic safety measures after multiple incidents. "[Resident #14] should only be with female staff, if it's a male staff they should have a female there to limit the exposure," the DON said. However, the Administrator admitted "there was nothing in place for a male not going in to [Resident #14's] room alone."
The MDS Nurse revealed how the facility had misclassified the sexual activity in care planning documents. "It was located under the ADLs because it was [Resident #14] and another resident consenting," the nurse explained. "It was not considered a behavior and there were no interventions for sexual activity."
This approach ignored the fundamental issue of the resident's inability to provide informed consent due to stroke-related cognitive impairment.
The facility's response came only after the latest incident prompted outside scrutiny. Mental health professionals were brought in to evaluate the resident, and medication changes were implemented to address what staff termed "hyper sexuality."
The Administrator described recent conversations with the resident about "safe sexual activity" and "sexual activity consequences and STD issues." But these discussions occurred with a person who, according to the facility's own assessment, cannot carry on conversations due to stroke damage.
Care plan meetings with the resident's representative revealed the sexual behavior was not new, but the facility had failed to develop appropriate interventions or safeguards over time. The DON said interventions now include mental health evaluation, medication adjustments, and staff redirection when inappropriate behavior occurs.
"We redirect [Resident #14] and tell the resident they shouldn't do that," the Administrator said.
The inspection found the facility's approach violated federal requirements for protecting vulnerable residents from sexual contact they cannot consent to. The Administrator acknowledged the expectation was clear: "It is not my expectation the residents should have sex with employees."
Yet the facility allowed such contact to occur repeatedly without implementing adequate protections for a resident whose stroke left them unable to provide informed consent. The MDS Nurse's admission that sexual activity was only addressed in care plans "when something happens or gets reported" highlighted the reactive rather than protective approach.
The case illustrates the complex challenges nursing homes face when residents exhibit sexual behaviors, but also the facility's failure to distinguish between consensual activity and exploitation of vulnerable individuals who cannot provide meaningful consent due to cognitive impairment.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Ouachita Nursing and Rehabilitation Center from 2025-08-21 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
- View all inspection reports for Ouachita Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
- Browse all AR nursing home inspections