Aspire of Pleasant Valley: Lab Test Delayed 3 Days - IA
That exchange sits at the center of a November 2025 complaint inspection at Aspire of Pleasant Valley, a nursing facility in eastern Iowa. The inspection, conducted October 30 and November 10, examined what happened after a resident who self-catheterized developed symptoms that pointed to a possible UTI.
On October 17, at 11:32 in the morning, Staff A, a registered nurse, wrote an order for a urinalysis with culture and sensitivity. The specimen was not scheduled for collection until October 20. Three days later.
The facility's own advanced practice registered nurse practitioner said she never authorized that order and never heard from any nurse that the resident had symptoms. "If the resident was having symptoms of a UTI," she told inspectors, "she would have directed them to collect the UA at that time and not wait 3 days."
Staff A's explanation for the delay was that she didn't think the laboratory would pick up the specimen. The facility's lab, she apparently believed, only came on Tuesdays for scheduled draws. But the Director of Nursing told inspectors that staff had always known how to handle urgent specimens: order them as STAT, and the lab would come that day. If that still didn't work, staff could drive specimens to one of the local hospital labs. The DON said staff knew this and had done it before.
The MDS nurse, Staff C, said she had no idea why the October 17 order was scheduled out to October 20. She offered one explanation: Staff A must not have known about the option to take specimens to a local hospital lab. "That was the only explanation she could offer."
Staff C also disclosed something that made the three-day delay harder to explain away. The October 17 order was never authorized by any medical provider at all. It had been entered into the facility's computer system as a "provider written order," a category that, it turned out, did not automatically route to the provider for review and signature. Nobody caught it. The ARNP told inspectors she did see a notation about the October 20 results but did not remember nurses speaking to her when she was at the facility on October 19, one day before the specimen was finally collected.
Staff B, a second registered nurse, worked the Sunday night shift and collected the specimen early that morning so it could go out Monday with the regular lab run. She told inspectors she did nothing wrong. "I did everything appropriately and as I was instructed," she said. Staff A had told her to collect it then. The order said to collect it then. She followed the order.
When asked whether a three-day wait on a suspected UTI specimen was normal, Staff B said that was how it was ordered, and that was what she did. She said the only lab problem she knew of at the facility involved a specimen rejected because it was labeled incorrectly. She was not aware of any broader issues with the lab transporting specimens.
The resident was discharged from the facility before any of this surfaced in a way that reached the ARNP. Inspectors noted that if staff had emptied the collection graduate and cleaned the resident after she self-catheterized, they would have seen the urine. Whether concerning symptoms were communicated to the resident before her discharge, the inspection report leaves in question.
Staff C told inspectors the facility was conducting staff education on how to enter orders correctly, specifically that telephone orders, unlike provider written orders, automatically route to the provider for authorization. She said she had learned from this herself.
The violation was cited at a level of minimal harm or potential for actual harm, affecting few residents. But the picture the inspection assembled is of a system where a nurse wrote an order without provider authorization, scheduled a time-sensitive specimen collection three days out based on a mistaken belief about lab logistics, and when confronted with the ARNP's direct contradiction of her account, stopped talking.
The resident had already left the building by the time anyone sorted out what had happened.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Aspire of Pleasant Valley from 2025-11-18 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 20, 2026 · Our methodology
Aspire of Pleasant Valley in Pleasant Valley, IA was cited for violations during a health inspection on November 18, 2025.
That exchange sits at the center of a November 2025 complaint inspection at Aspire of Pleasant Valley, a nursing facility in eastern Iowa.
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.