Citations in Arkansas
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Arkansas.
Statistics for Arkansas (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Arkansas
A resident with peripheral vascular disease, prior toe amputation, and malnutrition had multiple lower extremity wounds managed by an external Wound Care Clinic, which issued detailed written orders for cleansing, specific dressings, and compression. Facility TAR entries showed generalized leg treatments on a fixed schedule instead of the ordered every-other-day frequency, did not distinguish between multiple wounds on the same leg, omitted documentation of ordered transfer foam and a compression stocking, and added self-adherent wrap that was not ordered. Interviews with the TN and DON confirmed that the TN was responsible for entering and carrying out clinic orders, and leadership could not produce documentation that all ordered treatments were provided or explain the altered treatment frequency, contrary to facility policy requiring treatments to follow provider orders.
Surveyors found that a nurse responsible for wound care and infection prevention failed to follow basic infection control practices while treating two residents with pressure ulcers and one with a suprapubic catheter. The nurse repeatedly handled keys, a phone, and a computer, then accessed and prepared wound supplies without performing hand hygiene, touched gauze with ungloved hands before using it on a wound, and set up supplies on non‑impervious paper towels next to personal items instead of on a properly disinfected, protected surface. During one observation, the nurse cleaned a hip pressure ulcer and then a suprapubic catheter site using separate gauze cups but without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene between dirty and clean tasks, and then applied dressings after glove removal without washing hands. Facility policies required clean technique, use of an impervious barrier, handwashing between dirty and clean steps, and labeling dressings, but these were not followed, and the nurse and leadership acknowledged that the nurse had not received formal wound care training from the facility.
Two residents with complex medical conditions and extensive medication regimens experienced significant medication errors when new LPNs, inadequately oriented and not fully competency-checked, misadministered drugs during med pass. In one case, a new LPN on her first day, unfamiliar with residents and the electronic system, gave another resident’s medications—including a hypoglycemic and an antihypertensive—to a cognitively intact resident with multiple cardiopulmonary and renal diagnoses, leading to hypotension, hypoglycemia, and hospital transfer. In the other case, an LPN in training and her preceptor pulled medications simultaneously from the same cart, and a resident requesting pain medication received an excessive dose of a controlled sleeping pill instead, a drug the pharmacist stated would definitely increase sedation and could depress CNS and breathing. Facility policy required verification of resident identity, triple-checking medication labels, and at least three days of accompanied med rounds for new personnel, but interviews showed these requirements were not fully implemented before the new nurses participated in or conducted medication administration alone or in a hurried, shared-cart process.
The facility failed to implement and complete its nurse orientation and competency validation process for new LPNs, resulting in two separate medication errors. One LPN, new to LTC and unfamiliar with the facility’s computer system, was left alone on the med cart after only partial observation-based training and without a completed competency checklist, and a resident received another resident’s medications. Another new LPN, also without documented competency sign-offs, was in joint med-pass with an untrained preceptor when a resident requesting pain medication was given sleeping pills after the preceptor pulled the wrong controlled medication and the trainee administered it. Preceptors were selected informally from floor nurses without preceptor training, and leadership interviews confirmed that required competency checklists and the facility’s own med-pass orientation policy were not consistently followed or documented.
Two residents who required substantial/maximal assistance with ADLs did not receive consistent nail care, use of protective geri-sleeves, and shaving as outlined in their care plans. One resident with Parkinson’s disease, severe cognitive impairment, and a history of arm skin tears was repeatedly observed with overgrown fingernails and exposed arms without geri-sleeves, despite ADL records indicating weekly nail checks and encouragement of geri-sleeves. Staff interviews revealed uncertainty about who was responsible for applying geri-sleeves and providing nail care, and ADL documentation lacked staff initials. Another resident with tremors and moderate cognitive impairment was observed multiple times with visible chin hair and reported not being offered shaving, even though ADL records showed facial hair checks and shaving as needed were documented as completed without initials. A CNA acknowledged seeing the facial hair earlier and intending to shave the resident later, and the DON confirmed CNAs were responsible for checking and removing facial hair and that documentation should not indicate tasks were done when they were not.
A resident with respiratory failure, heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and COPD was approved to self-administer inhaled medications, but surveyors observed the resident’s corticosteroid and beta2-agonist inhalers left unattended on the over-bed table on multiple occasions, and a medication lockbox kept on the over-bed table with the key left in the lock. The resident reported being told they could use their own inhalers. An LPN stated the resident was approved for unsupervised self-administration but admitted not being familiar with the self-administration policy, while also acknowledging that medications should not be left on the over-bed table and that the lockbox should not have the key in it. The DON and another LPN described that the facility’s process and expectations required assessment of the resident’s ability to self-administer, demonstration of correct use, and secure locked storage out of reach of other residents, and CNAs stated that medications should not be left out in resident rooms.
Failure to Follow Wound Clinic Orders for Lower Extremity Wounds
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete and follow wound care provider orders for one resident with multiple lower extremity wounds. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease, acquired absence of a right toe, and malnutrition, and was documented as alert, oriented, and cognitively intact. The resident received wound care at an external Wound Care Clinic, which issued detailed written orders on two separate dates for multiple wounds on both lower legs, specifying cleansing with normal saline, use of transfer foam or autolytic debridement gel, specific secondary dressings, soft cloth surgical tape, sterile roll gauze, gauze sponges, and, for one right lower leg wound, a compression stocking. Review of the facility’s Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for the same period showed that the treatments documented did not match the clinic’s orders. The TAR listed generalized treatments for the left and right lower legs, including cleansing with normal saline, gauze to the wound bed, and application of self-adherent wrap from toes to bend of leg on a Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday schedule, rather than every other day as ordered. Later TAR entries for bilateral extremities referenced autolytic debridement gel, auto debridement dressing, and elasticated tubular bandage, but still did not clearly distinguish between the multiple wounds on the right lower leg or document all ordered components. There was no distinction on the TAR to ensure both right lower leg wounds were treated, no documentation that transfer foam was applied as ordered, and no documentation that the ordered compression stocking was applied to the specified right lower leg wound. Interviews and record review confirmed these discrepancies and the lack of supporting documentation. The Treatment Nurse described a process in which Wound Care Clinic orders were faxed to the facility, compiled, and then entered onto the TAR by the Treatment Nurse after leadership meetings or by the end of the business day. The DON stated that it was the Treatment Nurse’s responsibility to ensure clinic orders were completed and acknowledged that wounds could deteriorate if not treated per provider orders. During a joint interview, the DON, Administrator, and Nurse Consultant were unable to provide any documentation that the transfer foam treatment was given as ordered or any explanation for why every-other-day orders were carried out on a fixed Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday schedule. Facility policy on Medication and Treatment Orders required that medications be administered per the written order of a licensed provider, which was not followed in this case.
Inadequate Hand Hygiene and Aseptic Technique During Wound and Catheter Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide wound care in a manner that prevented infection for two residents receiving wound treatments. For the first resident, who had cellulitis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, protein-calorie malnutrition, venous insufficiency of both lower extremities, chronic venous hypertension with inflammation, candidiasis of the skin and nails, and a stage 2 pressure ulcer to the sacrum, the Treatment Nurse (TN), who was also the Infection Preventionist (IP), did not consistently perform hand hygiene or maintain a clean field. During wound care, the TN handled personal items such as keys, a cell phone, and the computer, then accessed wound care supplies from the treatment cart without performing hand hygiene afterward. The TN touched gauze pads with ungloved hands, sprayed them with wound cleanser, and later used those same gauze pads to cleanse the resident’s wound. The TN also set up supplies on a bathroom counter using a non‑impervious paper towel as a barrier, contrary to facility policy requiring an impervious barrier, and did not date or initial the new dressing. For the second resident, who had diagnoses including congestive heart failure, protein-calorie malnutrition, hypertension, GERD, neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, a stage 3 pressure ulcer of the right hip, urethrocutaneous fistula, UTI, and an indwelling catheter, the TN again failed to follow infection prevention practices during wound care. The TN unlocked the treatment cart with keys from her pocket, returned the keys to her pocket, and touched the computer before retrieving wound care supplies, then proceeded without performing hand hygiene until later in the process. She prepared gauze pads in cups with wound cleanser while gloved, then removed her gloves and continued the setup. In the resident’s room, she cleaned only half of the bedside table with a wet, soapy paper towel and dried it with another towel, then placed a non‑impervious paper towel as a barrier for wound supplies, while the other half of the table remained cluttered with personal items including a basin with cups and straws hanging over the wound supplies. During the wound care for the second resident, the TN washed her hands in the bathroom for approximately six seconds before donning gloves. She removed the old dressing from the right hip pressure ulcer, changed gloves, and then used gauze from one cup to clean the hip pressure ulcer. Without performing hand hygiene or changing gloves between dirty and clean tasks, she then used gauze from a second cup to clean the resident’s suprapubic catheter site, which she stated had drainage and had been cauterized the previous week. After removing her gloves, she did not perform hand hygiene before placing a split drain gauze around the suprapubic catheter and applying calcium alginate and a bordered foam dressing to the right hip wound. The TN later acknowledged that she did not wash her hands when going from dirty to clean tasks, that she should have changed gloves before moving to the secondary dressing, and that she had not received wound care training from the facility despite functioning as the wound care nurse and IP. Facility policies required clean technique, prevention of supply and surface contamination, use of an impervious barrier, handwashing after removing dirty gloves and before donning clean gloves, and labeling new dressings with initials, date, and time, as well as adherence to handwashing guidelines consistent with CDC recommendations for at least 15 seconds of rubbing. Interviews with the TN, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Director of Nursing (DON) further clarified the expectations and deviations from practice. The TN stated she believed she performed hand hygiene when entering rooms and after touching anything dirty, but acknowledged she did not wash her hands between dirty and clean tasks and recognized that setting up wound supplies next to personal items would be an infection control issue. The NP stated that the suprapubic catheter and pressure ulcer should be cleaned one at a time and not treated simultaneously, and that she would not want wound contaminants introduced to the suprapubic catheter. The DON reported that the TN had been performing wound care since around November, had no wound care certification, and had received no specific wound care training from the facility, although the DON believed the TN had prior wound care experience elsewhere. The DON stated that staff should clean hands and change gloves when going from dirty to clean tasks, that separate areas such as a suprapubic catheter and a pressure ulcer should not be treated at the same time due to infection concerns, that dressings should be dated as a standard practice, that bedside tables should be clean, uncluttered, and disinfected rather than just washed with soap and water, and that a brief six‑second handwash was not appropriate.
Failure to Prevent Significant Medication Errors for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to prevent significant medication errors for two residents during medication administration. For the first resident, who had multiple complex diagnoses including pneumonia, COPD, CHF, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease stage 3, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and aortic valve stenosis, a nurse on her first day at the facility administered another resident’s medications in error. The resident was cognitively intact and receiving numerous scheduled medications, including diuretics, anticoagulants, antihypertensives, electrolyte replacements, and oxygen. A Medication Error Report documented that the resident was mistakenly given four incorrect medications intended for another resident, including a blood sugar–lowering medication, an antidepressant, a uric acid–lowering medication, and an antihypertensive with side effects of hypotension and hyperkalemia and label warnings related to diabetic medications. The error for the first resident occurred when an LPN, new to LTC and to the facility’s computer system, misidentified the resident and pulled the wrong medications. The LPN reported that it was her first day, she had limited orientation time with an RN preceptor that morning, and she had not been checked off as competent to administer medications independently. She stated she did not yet know the residents, found the electronic photos too small to distinguish individuals, and did not know how to enter orders into the computer. She described feeling overstimulated and attempting to work independently. The UM, who was simultaneously functioning as wound nurse, UM, and preceptor, left the LPN alone on the cart after the LPN stated she felt comfortable, despite the UM not having observed her passing medications and not having completed the medication portion of the competency checklist. The RN who precepted earlier in the day stated the LPN had only observed her, had not performed tasks independently, and had not been checked off to administer medications alone. Following the wrong-medication administration to the first resident, vital signs later showed hypotension and hypoglycemia, and the resident was sent to the hospital. Hospital records documented treatment for a medication error, hypotension, hypoglycemia, elevated heart enzymes, and acute kidney injury, with very low blood pressure on arrival and the resident reporting feeling like they were dying. Documentation from the hospital indicated facility staff reported the resident had been hypotensive for two hours. The pharmacist, after reviewing the resident’s scheduled medications and the medications given in error, stated she would have monitored for low blood pressure, low blood sugar, and oversedation, and identified multiple medications that could contribute to these effects. The NP stated it was difficult to determine whether the medication error caused the event, noting the resident’s existing pneumonia and kidney function issues. The resident’s representative reported being notified of a severe drop in blood pressure and stated that a physician advised seeking legal advice. The second resident involved in the deficiency had multiple diagnoses including critical illness myopathy, metabolic encephalopathy, cerebral edema, diabetes, morbid obesity, respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia, obstructive sleep apnea, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, hyperlipidemia, bipolar disorder, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease, and was cognitively intact. This resident was on a complex medication regimen including antipsychotics, antidepressants, anticoagulants, antibiotics, diuretics, opioids, and hypoglycemics. A Medication Error Report documented that the resident was accidentally given two sleeping pills instead of two pain pills. The error occurred while an LPN in training and her preceptor were both pulling medications from the same cart, with the trainee pulling non-controlled medications and the preceptor pulling narcotics. For the second resident, the trainee LPN reported that the resident had requested a pain pill but was given sleeping pills instead. She stated that the mistake was discovered later when controlled medications were counted and that the sleeping pill, a controlled medication, was stored in the narcotic box with other controlled medications. She reported that the preceptor punched the medication from the wrong card, that the pills were both small white tablets, and that they were trying to hurry. The trainee LPN stated she did not recall any specific competency check-offs and that her license had simply been verified. The pharmacist stated that the dose of sleeping medication given exceeded the recommended daily dose and would definitely increase sedation, with potential for amnesia, CNS depression, and breathing interruptions if the resident did not use a pressurized mask while sleeping, as well as possible sleepwalking episodes. The NP later reported there were no adverse side effects observed in this resident. The facility’s written Medication Administration policy required that medications be administered in accordance with orders, that the individual administering medications verify resident identity before administration, and that the label be checked three times to ensure the right resident, medication, dose, and route. The policy also stated that medications ordered for one resident may not be administered to another, and that new personnel authorized to administer medications would not be permitted to prepare or administer medications until oriented to the facility’s medication administration system. It further required that a charge nurse accompany new nursing personnel on medication rounds for a minimum of three days to ensure procedures were followed and proper resident identification methods were learned. Interviews with the UM, RN preceptor, and LPNs indicated that the new nurses involved in both medication errors were allowed to participate in or conduct medication passes without full completion of competency checklists, without consistent direct observation, and while preceptors were performing multiple roles or sharing the cart, contributing to the misadministration of medications to both residents.
Failure to Implement Effective Nurse Orientation and Competency Validation Leading to Medication Errors
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement an effective nurse training and competency program for new LPN staff, resulting in incomplete orientation and unverified competencies for at least two nurses. The facility maintained a New Trainee Folder and a Licensed Nurse Competency Skills Check-off form intended to cover unit safety, communication, infection control, nursing care, emergency procedures, equipment, medication administration, pain management, resident rights, abuse, dementia care, QAPI, person-centered care, cultural competency, and HIPAA. Human Resources reported that the competency checklist was to be printed and placed in a staffing binder, completed by the preceptor over the first three days, and then signed off by leadership. However, for both reviewed LPNs, these competency checklists were not completed, and there was no documented verification that they had met medication administration or other required competencies before functioning independently. One LPN, on her first day working in the facility and with no prior LTC experience, was involved in a medication error in which a resident received another resident’s medications. This LPN reported that she had only been trained by an RN from 6 AM to 10 AM on how residents took their medications and who had swallowing issues, and that she did not know how to enter orders into the computer system and was unfamiliar with the software. The RN preceptor stated that the LPN had only observed her and had not performed any tasks independently before the RN left, and that she had not checked the LPN off to administer medications alone. The Unit Manager acknowledged that the LPN had no LTC experience, that she did not complete the medication portion of the competency checklist, and that she left the LPN alone on the cart after the LPN stated she felt comfortable, despite not having seen her pass medications. The facility’s Medication Administration policy required that new personnel not administer medications until oriented to the system and that a charge nurse accompany them on medication rounds for a minimum of three days, but this process was not followed or documented for this LPN. Another new LPN, also without a completed competency checklist, was involved in a separate medication error in which a resident requesting pain medication received sleeping pills instead. This LPN reported that she was in training with a preceptor, and that both nurses were pulling medications from the same cart, with the preceptor handling controlled substances. The error occurred when the preceptor punched a sleeping pill from the wrong card, and the trainee LPN administered it, noting that the pills were both small and white and that they were trying to hurry. The LPN stated she did not recall any specific competency check-offs being done beyond a license check. The Unit Manager and ADON both confirmed that preceptors were simply floor nurses who had been at the facility longer, with no formal preceptor training, and that the current training program had only recently started. Employee files for both LPNs lacked completed Licensed Nurse Competency Skills Check-off forms as of the survey date, and leadership interviews showed uncertainty about when competency checklists should be completed and how much training the LPNs had actually received before being allowed to function independently.
Failure to Provide Regular Nail Care, Protective Sleeves, and Shaving for Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide regular nail care and use of protective geri-sleeves for one resident and shaving/personal grooming for another resident, as required by their care plans and ADL needs. For Resident #91, surveyors observed on multiple occasions that the resident’s fingernails extended over the tips of the fingers, despite a care plan intervention directing staff to check nail length and trim and clean nails on bath day and as necessary. The resident had Parkinson’s disease with dyskinesia, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 04), required substantial/maximal assistance with showering and personal hygiene, and had a history of skin tears on the right arm. The care plan also included an intervention to encourage use of geri-sleeves due to potential skin integrity impairment, but the resident was repeatedly observed with arms exposed and without geri-sleeves in place. Record review for Resident #91 showed ADL tasks for checking, cutting, and filing nails weekly, and for encouraging geri-sleeves as tolerated, were marked as completed on several dates; however, there were no staff initials to identify who performed these tasks. During interviews, CNAs and a MA-C demonstrated uncertainty about who was responsible for placing geri-sleeves on the resident, when they should be applied, and whether the resident was supposed to wear them at all. One CNA believed hospice aides provided nail care and that they visited three times a week, while another CNA stated she provided nail care when needed and that the resident did not wear geri-sleeves, even though she acknowledged the resident would need them due to fragile skin. The DON reported there was no facility policy for ADLs and did not provide skills check-offs for the CNAs involved. For Resident #107, surveyors twice observed visible hair on the resident’s chin, and the resident reported that staff had not offered to shave the chin. The resident had a diagnosis of other specified forms of tremors, moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 09), and required substantial/maximal assistance with showering and personal hygiene. The care plan required staff assistance with bathing/showering and personal hygiene, and the ADL task list showed scheduled bath days and documented completion of a task to check for facial hair and shave as needed on several dates, again without staff initials. Progress notes did not show any refusal of shaving by the resident. A CNA stated she determined needed care by looking in the resident’s closet care plan, that CNAs were responsible for bathing/showering, and that staff checked for facial hair on shower days and should check daily. She acknowledged seeing facial hair that morning and intended to shave the resident later. The DON stated CNAs were responsible for checking and removing facial hair during showers and as needed, and that CNAs should not document facial hair removal when it had not been done.
Failure to Safely Manage Self-Administration of Inhalers and Medication Storage
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident approved for self-administration of medications could follow instructions so that medications were not left at the bedside. The resident had diagnoses including respiratory failure, heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and COPD, and was receiving oxygen via concentrator. Record review showed orders for a beta2-agonist inhaler and a corticosteroid inhaler, but no physician order for self-administration rights was initially found. The facility’s policy required that residents who self-administer be assessed by the IDT to ensure they could safely administer and store medications out of reach of other residents. On multiple observations, surveyors found the resident’s inhalers and lockbox not secured as required. During one observation, the resident was resting in bed with eyes closed, the oxygen concentrator running at two liters via nasal cannula, but the nasal cannula was not in place, and both the corticosteroid and beta2-agonist inhalers were left unsupervised on the over-bed table. The resident stated they had been told they could use their own inhalers. On a later observation, a lockbox with the key left in the lock was seen on the over-bed table, and the resident stated the lockbox contained prescription inhalers but could not recall when it was provided. On another observation, the lockbox with the key still in the lock remained on the over-bed table while the resident was resting with oxygen in place. Interviews with staff confirmed that the resident had been approved for self-administration but revealed gaps in adherence to policy and lack of staff familiarity with self-administration procedures. An LPN stated the resident had been approved to self-administer inhalers at the bedside unsupervised and acknowledged not being familiar with the self-administration policy, while also stating that medications should not be left unattended on the over-bed table and that the lockbox should not have the key in the lock. The DON described the process for approving self-administration, including assessment, demonstration of use, and locked storage, and stated it would not be appropriate to leave a key in the lock or medications out on the over-bed table. Another LPN reported there had not been prior residents with self-administration rights and agreed that medications should not be stored on the over-bed table or in a lockbox with the key in place. CNAs stated that any medications found on the over-bed table would be reported to a nurse and that residents were not allowed to have unstored medication out in the open in their rooms.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in Arkansas — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Arkansas
Data through Mar 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 against the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
No tags meet the emerging criteria for this period — nothing rare is spiking right now.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
