Citations in District Of Columbia
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in District Of Columbia.
Statistics for District Of Columbia (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in District Of Columbia
Facility staff did not provide required Notices of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) at least two days before the end of Medicare Part A services for two Medicare beneficiaries. In one case, the resident’s representative received the NOMNC by email only one day before rehab services ended. In the other case, a resident signed the NOMNC on the last covered day of Part A services. During interview, the social worker confirmed that NOMNCs for these residents were not issued 48 hours in advance of the termination of covered services.
Surveyors found that the facility did not ensure required monthly medication regimen reviews were consistently documented and that physician responses to pharmacist recommendations were obtained. For one resident with dementia, diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease who was receiving PRN oxycodone for severe pain, there was no documented monthly medication review for a specific month despite facility policy requiring monthly pharmacist review. For another resident with COPD, dementia with mood disturbance, depression, and multiple psychotropic and related medications, the consultant pharmacist documented concerns about psychotropic polypharmacy and recommended a psychiatric consult and consideration of gradual dose reductions, but the record contained no documented physician or prescriber response. The RN/Clinical Nurse Manager described a process for routing MRRs to physicians but could not locate a response for this resident’s review or explain how missed MRRs were prevented.
Staff failed to maintain sanitary conditions in food storage, preparation, and dishwashing areas, including undated opened shredded cheese, expired milk with settled contents, condensation leaking onto frozen food, and significant food residue on equipment and floors. A kitchen manager checked tuna salad temperature before handwashing, a dishwashing employee used a towel to dry sanitized kitchenware, and mold and limescale were present in the dishwashing area. Pest control reports had previously cited food debris and inadequate cleaning under and behind kitchen equipment and drains. During a follow-up visit, employee personal belongings were stored on racks in the dry storage room, creating potential cross contamination with food and food-contact surfaces.
Staff failed to document required nursing care and treatments for two residents, resulting in incomplete medical records. One resident with dementia, Parkinson's disease, and severe malnutrition had a standing order for aspiration precautions every shift, but the TAR lacked documentation that these precautions were provided on two shifts. Another resident with respiratory and pain-related diagnoses had orders for non-skid socks during the evening shift for fall risk and for heel elevation/floating on pillows for pressure relief every shift while in bed, yet the TAR showed no evidence these interventions were documented on multiple evening shifts. A CNM acknowledged the missing documentation and uncertainty about whether chart checks include verifying completion of ordered care.
Staff failed to maintain essential kitchen equipment when the condensation pipe carrying condensate wastewater from the air condenser in the walk-in freezer was found leaking during a kitchen tour. The issue was confirmed in an interview with the kitchen manager and the corporate chef, who acknowledged the ongoing leak in the freezer’s condensation piping.
Facility staff did not maintain an effective pest control program in the kitchen, as evidenced by surveyor observations of multiple live flies at the juice counter and dishwashing areas during a tour. Pest control reports from an external vendor months apart documented repeated needs for general cleaning under and behind cooking equipment, along walls, around floor drains in the dish room, and under the juice counter due to food debris and uncleaned areas. During an interview, the corporate chef and kitchen manager acknowledged the presence of flies and the observed conditions.
Failure to Provide Timely NOMNC Prior to End of Medicare-Covered Services
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to provide required Notices of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC), Form CMS-10123, at least two days before the end of Medicare-covered services for two Medicare beneficiaries. Record review on 03/24/2026 at approximately 4:35 PM showed that for one resident, the skilled services episode began on 09/04/2025 with the last covered day of Part A services on 09/25/2025. An email exchange in the clinical record dated 09/24/2025 at 10:14 AM between the social worker (Employee #5) and the resident’s representative included an attached notice stating that the resident’s rehab services were ending the next day under that version of Medicare. The NOMNC documentation showed the representative acknowledged the notice via email on 09/24/2025 at 12:52 PM, confirming that the notice was not provided at least two days before the end of covered services. For a second resident, record review showed a skilled services episode start date of 08/29/2025 and a last covered day of Part A services of 09/22/2025. The NOMNC form for this resident contained the resident’s printed full name and a date of 09/22/2025 on the signature line, indicating the notice was given on the last covered day rather than at least two days in advance. During a face-to-face interview on 03/24/2026 at approximately 4:35 PM, the social worker (Employee #5) confirmed that the NOMNCs for both residents were not sent 48 hours before the end of covered services, acknowledging that the facility did not provide timely notification of changes to Medicare-covered items and services for these residents.
Failure to Complete Monthly Medication Reviews and Obtain Physician Response to Pharmacist Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that the consultant pharmacist completed and documented a monthly medication regimen review (MRR) for one resident and the failure of a physician or prescriber to respond to the pharmacist’s recommendations for another resident. Facility policy titled “Medication Review,” reviewed on 02/11/2026, required the consultant pharmacist to review each resident’s medication regimen monthly. One resident, admitted with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus, Dementia, Hypertension, and Chronic Kidney Disease, had an order for oxycodone 5 mg every six hours as needed for severe pain and an admission MDS showing a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of this resident’s medical record from September 2025 through February 2026 showed no documented evidence of a monthly medication review for October 2025. During a telephone interview, the consultant pharmacist acknowledged that she should have made a note for every resident every month, confirmed that no note was present in the electronic health record for October, and stated it may have been an error on her part. For another resident, admitted with diagnoses including COPD, dementia with mood disturbance, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, depression, and generalized muscle weakness, the medical record contained multiple psychopharmacologic and related medications, including donepezil, trazodone, diazepam (in two different doses and schedules), Fetzima, Abilify, and Remeron. A Medication Regimen Review dated 12/08/2025 documented the pharmacist’s recommendation for a regular psychiatric consult to monitor therapy efficacy and side effects and to consider gradual dose reductions due to polypharmacy of psychopharmacological medications. The clinical record lacked documented evidence of any physician or prescriber response to this recommendation. In an interview, the RN/Clinical Nurse Manager described the process for handling MRR recommendations—receiving them by email, printing and flagging them in the paper chart for physician response, and then filing them in a binder—but was unable to locate the physician’s response to the 12/08/2025 MRR and did not explain how she ensured that no residents’ MRRs were missed.
Unsanitary Food Storage, Preparation, and Dishwashing Practices in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to prepare and distribute food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen and dishwashing areas. During an initial kitchen survey, surveyors observed an undated opened bag of shredded cheese in the refrigerator and multiple half-gallon milk containers in a reach-in refrigerator that were past their sell-by dates, with contents appearing settled. In the walk-in freezer, condensation water was leaking onto packaged potato fries. A kitchen manager checked the temperature of tuna salad before washing hands. Surveyors also noted significant food residue buildup on cooking equipment and floors in both the cooking and dishwashing areas, as well as excessive limescale accumulation on the interior surfaces of the automatic dishwashing machine. A dishwashing employee used a towel to dry food-contact surfaces of washed and sanitized kitchenware, and mold was present on wall surfaces and caulk lines in the automatic dishwashing area. Pest control reports from an outside company documented prior findings that the kitchen floor areas along walls, under equipment on the cooking line, behind cooking equipment, under the three-compartment sink in the dish room, and under the juice counter contained food debris and needed cleaning, and that a small center drain on the cooking line needed to be cleaned. During a follow-up kitchen survey, employee personal belongings, including a jacket and backpack, were observed stored on racks in the dry storage room rather than in a designated locker area, creating a potential for cross contamination of food and food-contact surfaces stored there. These conditions and practices collectively demonstrate a failure to maintain food storage, preparation, and distribution in accordance with sanitary and professional standards.
Failure to Document Ordered Aspiration, Fall, and Pressure Injury Precautions
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records and to document nursing care and treatment as ordered for two residents. For one resident with dementia, Parkinson's disease, and severe protein-calorie malnutrition, a physician's order dated 01/23/26 required aspiration precautions every shift. The resident’s Significant Change MDS showed a BIMS score of 03, indicating severely impaired cognition. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for March 1–31, 2026 showed no documented evidence that aspiration precautions were provided on the night shift of 03/07/26 and the evening shift of 03/18/26, despite the standing order. For another resident admitted with respiratory failure, pneumonia, asthma, and chronic back pain, a physician’s order dated 02/06/26 required non-skid socks during the evening shift for fall risk and elevation/floating of heels on pillows for pressure relief every shift while in bed. The admission MDS documented a BIMS score of 13, indicating the resident was cognitively intact and required supervision with ADLs. Review of the TAR for February 1–28, 2026 revealed no documented evidence that non-skid socks were applied during the evening shift, or that the resident’s heels were elevated/floated on pillows for pressure relief, on 02/07/26, 02/13/26, 02/21/26, and 02/22/26. In an interview, the Clinical Nurse Manager acknowledged the findings and stated that night shift normally performs 24-hour chart checks for new orders but was unsure if they verify that ordered care is documented as completed.
Failure to Maintain Walk-In Freezer Condensation System
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to maintain essential kitchen equipment, specifically the walk-in freezer, in good working order. During the initial kitchen tour on 03/24/2026 at approximately 10:15 AM, surveyors observed that the condensation pipe conveying condensate wastewater from the air condenser in the walk-in freezer was leaking. In a face-to-face interview conducted shortly thereafter on 03/24/2026 at approximately 10:30 AM, the Kitchen Manager (Employee #6) and the Corporate Chef (Employee #7) acknowledged the observed leak from the condensation pipe in the walk-in freezer.
Failure to Maintain Effective Kitchen Pest Control and Sanitation
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to maintain an effective pest control program to keep the kitchen free of pests, specifically flies. During an initial kitchen tour on 03/24/2026 at approximately 10:15 AM, surveyors observed multiple live flies at the juice counter and dishwashing areas. Review of a pest control report from Bay City Pest Management Co. Inc. dated 02/19/2026 documented that, although the kitchen was inspected, general cleaning was needed under equipment on the cooking line, along the wall and floor drain under the 3-compartment sink in the dish room, and in the corner area of the floor under the juice counter. A prior pest control report dated 07/18/2025 similarly noted that the floor area along the wall under counters and behind cooking equipment needed to be cleaned due to a lot of food debris, and that a small center drain on the cooking line needed cleaning. During a face-to-face interview on 03/24/2026 at approximately 10:15 AM, the Corporate Chef (Employee #7) and Kitchen Manager (Employee #6) acknowledged the observations of flies in the kitchen. No residents or their clinical conditions were mentioned in the report, and the deficiency centers on environmental sanitation and pest control practices in the kitchen area.
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 District Of Columbia — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in District Of Columbia
Data through Feb 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Mar 2025 – Feb 2026 against the prior period Mar 2024 – Feb 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.
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: Mar 2025 – Feb 2026 vs the prior period Mar 2024 – Feb 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 Mar 2025 – Feb 2026 vs the prior period Mar 2024 – Feb 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. Mar 2025 – Feb 2026 vs the prior period Mar 2024 – Feb 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.
Some of the Latest Corrective Actions taken by Facilities in District Of Columbia
- Revised the resident’s care plan to increase monitoring of location/whereabouts to every 30 minutes (J - F0689 - DC)
- Implemented a systemic change to increase monitoring for residents at risk for elopement/exit-seeking from every 1 hour to every 30 minutes (J - F0689 - DC)
- Applied wanderguards for residents identified as elopement risk and established orders to check placement and functioning every shift (J - F0689 - DC)
- Installed keypads on pantry doors so they could not be opened unless the code was entered (J - F0689 - DC)
- Re-educated dining staff on locking the pantry door when no one was in the pantry (J - F0689 - DC)
- Re-educated employees on ensuring doors that should not be left open/unlocked were properly closed and locked after entry/exit (J - F0689 - DC)
- Educated charge nurses on checking wanderguard placement and functioning (including methods to verify function) and documenting the wanderguard location during checks (J - F0689 - DC)
- Educated nursing staff on increasing monitoring for residents at risk for elopement from every hour to every 30 minutes (J - F0689 - DC)
Elopement from Memory Care Unit Due to Inadequate Supervision and Open Pantry Door
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure adequate supervision and adherence to a person-centered care plan for a resident identified as an elopement risk, resulting in the resident eloping from a secure Memory Care unit. The resident had multiple diagnoses including dementia, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and age-related macular degeneration, and had physician orders for behavioral monitoring related to elopement and for use of a wander guard (code alert) with checks for placement and functioning every shift. An elopement risk screening showed a high-risk score, and the care plan documented that the resident was at risk for elopement related to poor safety awareness, hoovered around the main exit door with a friend waiting for someone to allow them to leave, and was on high alert for elopement. Care plan interventions included following the community elopement evaluation and monitoring process, keeping the resident safe on the locked unit, replacing the wander guard bracelet as soon as it was known the resident had removed it, and that nursing would check and know the whereabouts of the resident at all times. On the day of the incident, documentation showed that the wander guard system had been checked and passed, and a safety checklist entry indicated that the resident was observed in her room at 11:00 AM. However, video recordings later showed that at approximately 11:40 AM, a food service manager entered the first-floor pantry near the Memory Care unit entry/exit doors and left the pantry door wide open. Shortly thereafter, the resident approached the dining room doors near the main entry/exit doors of the unit and hovered there while a food pantry worker was inside the pantry. The pantry worker exited through the dining room side pantry door, and the resident then opened the dining room doors, entered the dining room, and proceeded into the pantry. The video further showed that the resident exited the still-open pantry door located outside of the Memory Care unit, pushing her rolling walker, without staff knowledge. The resident then walked past two security officers in the main lobby, now without a walker and holding a jacket and a bag, and proceeded outside the facility’s main entry/exit doors. A nurse supervisor was later called by security to identify a person outside with a bag and recognized the individual as the resident from the Memory Care unit. The resident was resisting returning inside and was brought back with assistance from nursing staff, after which a head-to-toe assessment was completed with no abnormalities noted. Interviews revealed that an LPN had previously placed and tested a wander guard bracelet on the resident, but after the incident staff discovered that the resident had obtained scissors and used them to cut off the bracelet, hiding the scissors and cut bracelet in her pocketbook. The DON acknowledged that the care plan intervention stating that nursing would check and know the whereabouts of the resident at all times had been interpreted as hourly checks, and could not clearly explain what “at all times” meant beyond stating that staff frequently had eyes on the resident. The evidence showed that staff did not check and know the resident’s whereabouts at all times, and that the resident was able to elope from the secured unit without staff awareness, leading to identification of an Immediate Jeopardy at F689. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ-J) to resident health and safety was identified at 42 CFR 483.25, F689, on 03/18/26 at 1:12 PM based on these failures in supervision and implementation of the care plan, including failure to ensure the resident’s whereabouts were known at all times and failure to prevent elopement from a secure area.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was brought safely back into the facility by the Supervisor and first floor staff after being observed outside unsupervised.
- Upon re-entering the first floor, Resident #1 received a head-to-toe assessment by the charge nurse and supervisor and no abnormalities were noted.
- Resident #1's care plan was revised to increase monitoring of her location/whereabouts to every 30 minutes.
- Resident #1 is utilizing a wanderguard bracelet that will trigger both doors to the memory care unit.
- Resident #1 no longer has access to scissors used to remove the wanderguard; scissors were removed.
- The charge nurse notified Resident #1's legal guardian about the incident and that the resident cannot have access to scissors.
- Dining staff were educated by the Dining Manager on the importance of locking the pantry door when no one is in the pantry.
- Maintenance made the pantry door used for elopement inoperable so no one could enter/exit through that door; pantry access remained available via the dining room door for emergencies.
- Keypads were installed on both pantry doors so they cannot be opened unless the code is entered.
- A 100% audit of all residents at risk for elopement was conducted to ensure behavior monitoring for wandering/exit-seeking was in place.
- All residents identified as elopement risk and exit-seeking were to have care plans updated to reflect increased monitoring every 30 minutes.
- All residents identified as elopement risk were to have a wanderguard applied with an order to check placement and functioning every shift.
- All residents identified as elopement risk were to have a care plan identifying elopement risk and person-centered interventions to prevent unaccompanied leaving.
- All residents identified as elopement risk were to have orders in place to check wanderguards for placement and functioning every shift.
- All employees were to be re-educated on ensuring doors that should not be left open/unlocked are properly closed and locked after entry/exit.
- All charge nurses were to be re-educated on checking wanderguard placement and functioning, including methods to verify function.
- All nursing staff were to be educated on increasing monitoring for residents at risk for elopement from every hour to every 30 minutes.
- All charge nurses were to be educated on documenting the location of the resident's wanderguard when checking placement and functioning.
- Facility implemented a systemic change to increase monitoring for residents at risk for elopement and exit-seeking from every 1 hour to every 30 minutes.
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.
