Citations in Delaware
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Delaware.
Statistics for Delaware (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Delaware
Three residents who were dependent on staff for bed mobility and transfers did not receive adequate supervision and safe handling during care and transfers, resulting in serious injuries. A resident who was totally dependent for bed mobility slid from the bed to the floor while a CNA focused on gathering supplies during care, later being found to have an ankle fracture. Another resident with a prior brain bleed, craniotomy, and left-sided paralysis, requiring a mechanical lift with two staff, sustained a head injury when a Hoyer lift was improperly positioned or controlled during transfer from a shower bed to a wheelchair, causing the lift bar to strike the top of the head and leading to ongoing head and neck pain. A third resident needing extensive assistance fell between a shower bed and her regular bed when a CNA attempted to transfer her without locking the shower bed wheels, resulting in acute L2–L3 compression fractures confirmed by CT.
A resident who required set-up assistance for eating spilled coffee onto bare upper thighs while being prepared for morning care, initially resulting in nonblanchable redness with intact skin and no reported pain. During later incontinence care, staff identified a broken blister on the resident’s right upper thigh, cleansed the area, and applied skin prep, but did not notify the MD until more than a day after the blister was first noted. An NP confirmed that although she had been informed of the coffee spill itself, there was no documentation that the subsequent change in skin condition had been communicated to a provider, resulting in a failure to promptly notify the on-call provider of the new skin alteration.
A resident with significant neurologic impairment and multiple contractures slid from bed and was assisted to the floor during the night shift, but an RN did not complete the initial post-fall assessment until the following day shift. An LPN documented that the resident was seated after the event, denied pain, had ROM and VS assessed, and was assisted back to bed with a CNA. The DON later reported that the CNA and LPN did not report the event as a fall because the resident was assisted down, and the LPN stated she relied on the CNA’s account when completing the incident report and was unsure if the RN had been notified.
A resident reported an allegation of physical abuse by a CNA during the night shift, which was documented in the clinical record. Facility policy required that all alleged violations be reported to the Administrator, state agency, APS, and other required agencies immediately but no later than two hours after the allegation. Instead, the allegation was reported to the state agency approximately nine hours after it was made. An RN acknowledged not reporting the allegation right away and waiting for the day shift, and the DON confirmed that the reporting timeframe was not followed.
A resident with dementia and a care plan for false accusations alleged physical abuse by a CNA. Facility policy required staffing or room changes to protect residents from an alleged perpetrator, but the CNA remained on duty providing care to other residents for the rest of the shift. An LPN and an RN confirmed that the CNA continued working with residents, with the CNA only being stopped from caring for the accusing resident’s room, resulting in a failure to fully implement the abuse protection policy.
A resident with CHF and kidney disease requiring dialysis was admitted and assessed as having congestive heart failure, but the baseline care plan lacked CHF-related interventions and there was no timely physician order for fluid restriction despite a nutrition assessment referencing a 1500 mL limit. A physician note identified the resident as high risk for rehospitalization and called for strict I&O and daily weights, yet a formal fluid restriction order was not entered until several days later, only after the responsible party requested it. The next day, the resident was sent to the hospital from dialysis for chest pain and shortness of breath. In interviews, the MD, RN, and DON all confirmed the resident should have been placed on fluid restriction and monitoring upon admission and that this was not done in a timely manner.
Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision and Safe Transfers Resulting in Resident Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure adequate assistance and supervision to prevent accidents for three residents who were dependent on staff for mobility and transfers. One resident with anoxic brain injury, multiple contractures, abnormal posture, and idiopathic progressive neuropathy was documented on multiple MDS assessments as requiring substantial/maximal assistance for bed mobility and was described by nursing and therapy staff as totally dependent and unable to move or roll in bed without physical assistance. During nighttime care, a CNA entered the room in response to a call light, found that the resident had vomited, and focused on looking for towels while standing on one side of the bed. The CNA reported that the resident then began sliding off the opposite side of the bed; the CNA ran around the bed but was unable to prevent the resident from sliding off, and instead lowered the resident to the floor in a seated position. Subsequent imaging confirmed a stable right ankle fracture, and interviews with the NP, OT, LPN, and other CNAs confirmed that the resident was dependent for bed mobility and could not independently roll or slide out of bed, indicating that the resident did not receive the level of hands-on assistance and supervision consistent with their documented needs. A second resident with a history of brain bleed, seizure disorder, craniotomy, and left-sided paralysis had a care plan and therapy determination requiring a mechanical (Hoyer) lift with two staff for all transfers and was completely dependent on staff for bathing and transfers. During a transfer from a shower bed back to a wheelchair using a mechanical lift, the resident reported that the hooks of the lift were not properly attached to the bars, causing the front of the lift to become unbalanced and tilt backward, dropping the resident into the chair and allowing the lift bars to strike the top of the resident’s head at the craniotomy site. The resident stated that the lift was not moving when staff attempted to place him in the chair and that this type of incident had not occurred during prior showers, when he was typically returned to his room on the shower bed and transferred in bed. One CNA described that while assisting with the transfer, the lift appeared stuck and positioned sideways over the wheelchair; when she voiced concern and attempted to correct the position, the lift rose and the bar hit the resident’s head. The other CNA involved stated that as she operated the lift controls, the resident’s weight shifted, the lift tipped back, and the bar struck the top of his head. The physician documented a head strike from the Hoyer lift with subsequent head and neck pain, and the resident required repeated PRN pain medication for ongoing head and neck pain. A third resident with cerebral infarction and rheumatoid arthritis had orders and MDS documentation indicating a need for extensive to maximal assistance with bed mobility and dressing. After receiving a shower, this resident was brought back to the room on a shower bed. The facility’s incident report documented that the CNA lowered the side rail of the shower bed, pushed the shower bed against the resident’s bed, turned the resident on her side, removed the bath sheet, and began pushing the Hoyer pad underneath. During this process, the resident rolled and fell between the two beds to the floor, becoming very anxious and crying. A subsequent CT scan at the hospital revealed acute L2 and L3 vertebral compression fractures. In a later interview, the CNA acknowledged that she must have forgotten to lock the wheels on the shower bed before attempting the transfer, and described that when she rolled the resident to place the Hoyer pad, the shower bed separated from the resident’s bed, allowing the resident to fall between them. These events demonstrate that the resident did not receive adequate supervision and safe handling during the transfer process, despite her documented need for extensive assistance with mobility.
Failure to Timely Notify Provider of New Skin Blister After Coffee Spill
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to promptly notify a provider of a change in a resident’s skin condition following a coffee spill incident. The resident was admitted earlier in the month, and the admission MDS documented that the resident required set-up assistance for eating. On the morning of 3/30/26, a nurse documented that the resident placed a cup of coffee on the bed railing, and when he let go, the cup fell onto his lap, spilling hot coffee onto his bilateral upper thighs while he was not wearing pants and was about to receive morning care. At that time, the nurse documented nonblanchable redness on both upper thighs with all skin intact, and later that day a wound care RN documented that there was no scalded skin present and the resident denied pain. A late entry nurse’s note documented that during incontinence care on 3/31/26, a broken blister on the resident’s right upper thigh was identified, cleansed with saline, patted dry, and skin prep applied. Review of incident documentation showed that the physician was not notified of this blister until 4/1/26 at 8:38 AM, more than 24 hours after the blister was first identified. During interview, the NP stated she had been notified of the coffee spill on 3/30/26 but, upon reviewing the physician binder, confirmed there was no evidence that the change in skin condition noted on 3/31/26 had been communicated to a provider at that time. The facility therefore failed to notify the on-call provider when the resident experienced a change in skin condition after the coffee spill incident.
Failure to Obtain Timely RN Post-Fall Assessment After Assisted Descent to Floor
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that an RN performed and documented an initial post-fall assessment for a resident who slid off the bed and was lowered to the floor during the 11 PM–7 AM shift. The resident had significant medical conditions including anoxic brain injury, abnormal posture, multiple contractures of the upper and lower limbs, and idiopathic progressive neuropathy. A facility-reported incident documented that the resident sustained a fall with later complaint of ankle pain, with an X-ray obtained and results unclear, and a repeat film obtained two days later. The clinical record showed that the initial post-fall assessment was not completed by an RN until 8:34 AM on the 7 AM–3 PM shift by the ADON, and there was no evidence of an RN assessment during the overnight shift when the fall occurred. A witness summary completed by an LPN documented that the resident was in a seated position after the fall, denied pain, had range of motion assessed, denied pain again, had vital signs taken, and was assisted by a CNA back to bed. During interviews, the DON stated that the fall was not reported by the CNA and the LPN because they did not consider it a fall since the resident was assisted to the floor. In a phone interview, the LPN confirmed being called by the CNA about the fall, stated that care and an assessment were provided, and indicated uncertainty about whether the RN was notified, noting that the written incident report was based on what the CNA reported and that the LPN was not present at the time of the fall.
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Staff-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure immediate reporting of an allegation of staff-to-resident physical abuse in accordance with its abuse policy and regulatory time frames. The facility’s abuse policy, last updated January 2026, required that all alleged violations be reported to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services, and other required agencies immediately but no later than two hours after the allegation is made. On 6/12/25 at 3:31 AM, an incident note in the clinical record documented that resident R83 alleged physical abuse by a CNA (E8). However, the allegation was not reported to the State Agency until 11:21 AM the same day, approximately nine hours after the allegation was made, exceeding the required reporting timeframe. During an interview on 4/23/26 at 11:06 AM, an RN (E6) confirmed that the allegation was not immediately reported and stated that the DON later informed her it should have been reported right away rather than waiting for day shift. In a separate interview at 11:14 AM, the DON (E2) confirmed these findings. The deficiency centers on the delayed reporting of the abuse allegation to the State Agency despite clear policy requirements for immediate notification. The survey findings were reviewed with the Nursing Home Administrator (E1), the DON (E2), and others at the exit conference on 4/23/26 at 3:00 PM.
Failure to Remove Accused Staff From Resident Care After Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from further potential abuse by not immediately removing an accused staff member from resident care following an allegation of physical abuse. The facility’s abuse policy, updated January 2026, states that room or staffing changes are to be made as necessary to protect residents from the alleged perpetrator. On 6/12/25 at 11:21 AM, the facility reported an allegation of staff-to-resident physical abuse involving resident R83 and CNA E8. Record review of E8’s timesheet showed that after this allegation, E8 remained in the facility working with residents until 7:05 AM. During interview, LPN E7, who was assigned to R83’s unit at the time, confirmed that E8 continued caring for residents after R83’s accusation and stated that R83 had dementia and a care plan for false accusations, and that E8 was only stopped from caring for R83’s room for the rest of the shift. RN E6 also confirmed that E8 continued caring for residents after the allegation and stated that she instructed E8 to care for other patients. These findings were reviewed with the NHA (E1) and DON (E2) during the exit conference. The resident involved, R83, had dementia and a documented care plan for false accusations, which influenced staff’s decision to limit E8’s contact only with R83 rather than removing E8 from all resident care. Despite the facility’s written policy requiring protective staffing or room changes to safeguard residents from an alleged perpetrator, E8 remained on duty providing care to other residents for the remainder of the shift after the allegation of physical abuse was made.
Failure to Implement Timely Fluid Restriction and Monitoring for Resident With CHF and Dialysis
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide appropriate care and monitoring consistent with professional standards of practice for a resident admitted with congestive heart failure and kidney disease requiring dialysis. The resident was hospitalized for multiple conditions, including heart failure, and then admitted to the facility with diagnoses of congestive heart failure and kidney disease. An admission assessment by an RN documented congestive heart failure, but the baseline care plan did not include any interventions related to this diagnosis. A nutrition assessment documented that the resident was on a therapeutic meal plan with a 1500 mL fluid restriction and indicated ongoing monitoring of oral intake, weight, skin integrity, and labs, yet the physician’s orders and dietary intake records did not contain an order for fluid restriction. A physician progress note documented that the resident had multiple complex comorbidities, including heart failure, and was at high risk for rehospitalization without proper care, specifying a plan for strict intake and output and daily weights. An admission MDS later confirmed that the resident was cognitively intact, experiencing shortness of breath, and had an active diagnosis of heart failure. A physician’s order for a 1500 mL fluid restriction was not written until several days after admission, at the request of the resident’s responsible party. The following day, nursing documentation showed the resident was sent to the hospital from dialysis for chest pain and shortness of breath. In interviews, the MD, the admitting RN, and the DON all confirmed that the resident should have been placed on a fluid restriction and monitoring upon admission, and the DON acknowledged that the fluid restriction order was not implemented in a timely manner.
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 Delaware — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Delaware
Data through Jan 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Feb 2025 – Jan 2026 against the prior period Feb 2024 – Jan 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 3 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 3-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): Feb 2025 – Jan 2026 vs the prior period Feb 2024 – Jan 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Feb 2025 – Jan 2026 vs the prior period Feb 2024 – Jan 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: Feb 2025 – Jan 2026 vs the prior period Feb 2024 – Jan 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 Feb 2025 – Jan 2026 vs the prior period Feb 2024 – Jan 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 3 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Feb 2025 – Jan 2026 vs the prior period Feb 2024 – Jan 2025; the most recent 3 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 3 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.
