University Nursing Center: Aide Abruptly Removes Headband - IN
The incident occurred as Resident 40 sat near the nurses' station wearing a headband. CNA 8 walked to the edge of the station and looked directly at the resident as she passed by toward her room. The aide returned and reapproached Resident 40 at 12:37 p.m.
CNA 8 then abruptly placed a hat on the resident's head and propelled her wheelchair down the hallway.
Resident 40 told inspectors during a September 9 interview that she felt the aide removed the headband aggressively. The resident explained that CNA 8 did not verbalize she was removing the headband before taking it off her head. She was visually impaired and could only make out shadows.
The facility's administrator witnessed the encounter and described CNA 8's behavior as problematic during her interview with inspectors at 10:43 a.m. She indicated the aide could have taken more time switching out the headband for a hat. The administrator felt CNA 8 was rushed and seemed a little bit irritated during the incident.
"CNA 8 did not take the best approach with a visually impaired resident," the administrator told inspectors. She felt the aide took the headband off abruptly.
The administrator noted that Resident 40 was known for wearing hats, while the headbands were newer. She said the resident didn't complain often and had no other issues with CNA 8. The administrator emphasized that Resident 40 was visually impaired and only saw shadows.
The Director of Nursing corroborated the administrator's account during her interview at 10:50 a.m. She indicated that CNA 8 abruptly removed the headband from Resident 40's head. The DON said the aide was frustrated and was in a hurry. She didn't feel the incident was related to staffing ratios.
Other staff members had observed concerning behavior from CNA 8 toward the same resident. CNA 11 told inspectors at 1:27 p.m. that CNA 8 had displayed attitudes with Resident 40 in the past. CNA 11 said she had notified the Director of Nursing Services the previous week about CNA 8's attitude toward Resident 40.
However, when inspectors interviewed the Director of Nursing at 1:51 p.m., she indicated that CNA 8 had no prior disciplinary actions and claimed she was never notified by staff members of any concerns with the aide.
The contradiction between CNA 11's report and the DON's denial of receiving any notifications suggests potential communication breakdowns in the facility's reporting system for staff conduct issues.
The Corporate Nurse Consultant told inspectors at 10:55 a.m. that the facility was being proactive in providing abuse in-servicing. She said abuse education was offered both verbally and individually.
Federal inspectors cited the facility for failing to protect residents from neglect. The facility's own policy, titled "Abuse Prohibition, Reporting and Investigation," defines neglect as "failure to provide goods and services to a resident(s) necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress."
The inspection was conducted in response to a complaint filed as Intake 2611663. Inspectors determined the incident caused minimal harm or potential for actual harm and affected few residents.
The case highlights the vulnerability of residents with disabilities in nursing home settings. Resident 40's visual impairment made her particularly dependent on staff to communicate their actions and handle her with appropriate care and dignity.
The administrator's observation that CNA 8 appeared irritated during the incident raises questions about the aide's fitness to work with vulnerable residents. The fact that another staff member had previously reported concerns about the same aide's attitude toward the same resident suggests a pattern of inappropriate behavior that may have gone unaddressed.
The discrepancy between CNA 11's report of notifying supervisors about problems and the DON's claim of never receiving such notifications points to potential gaps in the facility's internal communication and oversight systems.
For Resident 40, who could only see shadows and relied on staff to communicate their intentions, the abrupt removal of her headband without warning represented a violation of her dignity and right to respectful treatment. The incident occurred in a public area near the nurses' station, potentially witnessed by other residents and visitors.
The facility's response of providing additional abuse education suggests recognition that staff training may be inadequate. However, the timing of this education as reactive rather than proactive raises questions about the facility's commitment to preventing such incidents before they occur.
University Nursing Center's handling of this complaint will likely face continued scrutiny as inspectors evaluate whether the facility's corrective actions adequately address both the specific incident and the underlying issues that allowed it to occur.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for University Nursing Center from 2025-09-09 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: Official federal inspection data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Editorial process: AI-synthesized regulatory data, reviewed for accuracy by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: June 21, 2026 · Our methodology
UNIVERSITY NURSING CENTER in UPLAND, IN was cited for violations during a health inspection on September 9, 2025.
The incident occurred as Resident 40 sat near the nurses' station wearing a headband.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.