How does the platform run an elopement drill and a missing-resident workflow that holds up in a survey or a lawsuit?
Design target · Internal estimate
Defensible timeline on real events
Modeled estimate from SeniorCRE engineering. Not a result: no approved Evidence Record supports it, and business outcomes remain contributory. See Industry Findings for methodology.
Incumbents this workflow touches
Proposed in-platform scope: Verbal "Code Pink" without recorded timeline
Roadmap integration targets (not live): Wander-management vendors (Accutech, Stanley) · Door-access systems · Local law enforcement
The operator may retain existing systems or select SeniorCRE for defined functions. Alongside existing systems, this workflow would depend on approved source access, implementation and operator acceptance. Named vendor integrations are roadmap targets, not completed connections.
The problem
A resident with cognitive impairment is unaccounted for. Staff start searching, the family is notified, the police are called — and nobody is taking notes. The timeline that emerges later is incomplete, and if the outcome is bad the operator has nothing defensible.
How the platform is designed to run it
Quarterly elopement drills run as a scripted workflow per shift, with the at-risk resident list pre-loaded and the response measured against the policy clock. A real event opens the same workflow: time of last sighting, response actions taken with timestamps and named staff, notifications (family, physician, police, state), search areas covered, and resolution. Door-access and wander-management events attach to the record.
Proposed operating behavior, not a live deployment. Source access, implementation and operator acceptance must be established before this workflow can operate in a community.
On the shift (illustrative)
Illustrative example on synthetic data. Names, figures, and events are not from any operator community.
Sunday at 3 a.m. a resident with cognitive impairment is unaccounted for on a routine round. The CNA opens the missing-resident workflow on the unit tablet; the timer starts; the wander-management system’s most recent door-access event for the resident appears in the workflow; the supervisor, the DON, the administrator, and (when the policy clock hits) the family and the police are notified through the workflow with timestamps. The resident is found in the courtyard at 3:17 a.m. The full timeline — every action with the named staff member — is on the record before the morning stand-up.
Design target
Drill compliance becomes auditable. A real event produces a defensible timeline. State investigations after an event are answered in hours, not weeks.
Design target only: not measured or validated in any community. Actual results require an operator baseline and pilot acceptance.
What goes wrong without it
On the verbal Code Pink, staff search the building with no central record of who looked where. The family is called at 3:40 a.m. by someone who is not sure what to say. If the resident had not been found in the courtyard — if the outcome had been bad — the operator has a timeline reconstructed from memory and a 2567 that will reference it. The lawsuit timeline reconstructed from memory is not the same as the lawsuit timeline reconstructed from a workflow.
Show me the evidence
Operators do not buy claims. They buy proof. If anything on this page reads as aspirational, ask us to walk you through exactly what is built, what is designed, and what is not yet in production in any community.
Where this connects in the platform
Every facilities workflow runs on the same record. These are the feature pages, head-to-head comparisons, and pillar articles that go deeper on the surfaces this workflow touches.
Feature surfaces
Compared head-to-head
Facilities and life-safety references
Facilities workflows on this page map to the CMS Emergency Preparedness Final Rule, the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) adopted by reference in 42 CFR 483.90, and CDC environmental infection-prevention guidance.
- CMS Emergency Preparedness Final Rule
CMS
Defines the four-element EP program — risk assessment, policies, communication plan, training and testing — surveyed under E-Tags.
- NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (as adopted by CMS)
CMS / NFPA
The fire-safety code surveyed by state fire marshals; drives K-Tag citations and corrective work orders.
- CDC Environmental Infection Control Guidelines
CDC
Authoritative source for water management (Legionella), HVAC, and surface cleaning protocols enforced through F-880.
- ASHRAE Standard 188 — Legionellosis Risk Management
ASHRAE
The water management plan framework CMS expects post-2017 memo QSO-17-30; drives the legionella workflow.