Folkston Park Care and Rehab: Resident Chokes to Death - GA

The resident, identified in inspection records only as R1, was known throughout the facility for behaviors that made constant supervision essential. He wandered in and out of other residents' rooms. He grabbed food that wasn't his. He shoved unchewed food into his mouth. He had eaten the stuffing out of a pillow. He had been placed on a pureed diet and designated as a resident who required feeding assistance to eat safely. Staff and management had discussed him in risk management meetings. His care plan reflected his swallowing risks. Everyone who worked on A Hall knew who he was and what he did.

He choked to death anyway.

Federal inspectors who investigated the incident found that on the afternoon of October 25, the two staff assigned to A Hall, a licensed practical nurse and a certified nursing assistant, were each occupied assisting a different resident with feeding when R1 aspirated. That left the remaining 21 residents, including R1, without anyone monitoring them. Inspectors cited the facility at the immediate jeopardy level, the most serious finding CMS issues, meaning the deficiency had already caused or was likely to cause serious injury or death.

It had already caused death.

LPN AA, who worked the unit, told inspectors that R1 was constantly moving, constantly entering other residents' rooms, constantly attempting to eat their food, and could not be redirected. When she and the CNA were helping residents eat, there was no one left to watch the others. She said she had raised the concern directly with management, including the administrator. She said they ignored her. She told inspectors the incident on October 25 was avoidable, and that it happened because of the lack of staff.

CNA BB said the same thing. She told inspectors management had refused to staff A Hall with more than one CNA and one nurse, even though the unit required a level of care that made two people inadequate. She described the math clearly: if the nurse was passing medications and she was helping a resident, there was no one left to monitor anyone who wandered, including R1. She said she had specifically asked for more staff to help with activities of daily living and with feeding during meals because she could see residents were being neglected. She called the October 25 incident avoidable.

CNA EE, interviewed separately, confirmed the unit ran on one CNA and one nurse. She said weekdays were sometimes more manageable because front office staff occasionally came to help with feeding, but weekends were different. On weekends, two staff handled feeding and all care for the entire unit. She said it was not manageable.

The Director of Nursing told inspectors she knew R1 ate anything he could get his hands on. She knew he shoved food into his mouth without chewing. She knew he was a wanderer. She said he had been discussed in risk management and had been made a designated feeder, meaning staff were supposed to assist him with every meal. She also acknowledged that one CNA and one nurse was not adequate to supervise A Hall, and confirmed that on October 25, when R1 choked to death, the residents on the unit were not being monitored.

She said she had asked corporate for help with staffing. Corporate cut staff instead. The reason, she told inspectors, was census. The facility staffed based on how many residents were present, not on how much care those residents required.

The scheduler confirmed it. She told inspectors she staffed the hall the way the DON directed, one CNA and one nurse, and that she was aware of R1's behaviors. She said those two staff could not be observing, monitoring, or caring for the rest of the 22 or 23 residents while they were occupied with feeding. She said residents on the unit were at elevated risk for accidents including falls. She said the administrator and corporate both knew A Hall needed more staff, and that both had chosen to cut staffing rather than add it.

The administrator, when inspectors interviewed her on October 28, confirmed that A Hall ran on one CNA and one nurse. She said she was aware staffing was a concern. She said no staffing changes had been implemented before October 25. She confirmed that when the two scheduled staff were feeding two other residents that afternoon, no one was monitoring or supervising the remaining 21 residents, including R1.

She also told inspectors she had not known R1's behaviors were escalating. She said she was unaware he had eaten pillow stuffing.

After R1 died, corporate approved an additional CNA for both day and night shifts on A Hall.

The decision that might have kept R1 alive came three days after he choked to death.

What the inspection record describes is not a single lapse or an unpredictable accident. It is a facility where the people closest to the floor, the nurses and nursing assistants who worked A Hall every shift, understood exactly what was going to happen and said so out loud to the people responsible for changing it. LPN AA told management. CNA BB told management. The staffing concern was not a secret. R1's behaviors were not a secret. The gap between what two staff could do and what 22 or 23 residents required was not a secret.

Management knew. Corporate knew. The administrator knew. The Director of Nursing knew and had tried to get help and been turned down. The scheduler knew and staffed the unit the way she was told.

The facility's own explanation for why it staffed the way it did, census over acuity, describes a system that counts bodies in beds rather than the level of care those bodies require. A hall full of people who wander, who cannot redirect, who cannot safely swallow, who require hand-over-hand feeding assistance, counted the same as a hall of residents who need less. The math was wrong every shift. On October 25, the consequence of that math was a man choking to death while the two people responsible for his unit were in other rooms.

R1 had eaten pillow stuffing. Staff knew it. It did not make it into what management tracked closely enough to act on.

He is gone now. The additional CNA shift was approved.

Full Inspection Report

The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Folkston Park Care and Rehabilitation Center from 2025-11-18 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.

Additional Resources

• View all inspection reports for Folkston Park Care and Rehabilitation Center
• Browse all GA nursing home inspections