Citations in New Mexico
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in New Mexico.
Statistics for New Mexico (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in New Mexico
A clogged floor drain sink in a janitor room led to black, dirty water accumulating in the drain and overflowing into a hallway. A housekeeper reported that the drain, used for disposing of mop water and cleaning chemicals, had been clogged for some time and that she had informed her supervisor. The housekeeping supervisor stated she had submitted several work orders and that housekeeping staff had been attempting to unclog the drain themselves for months, while the maintenance director reported having no active work orders for the issue and indicated that such black water can carry harmful microorganisms. The administrator stated he expects staff to submit work orders and report issues promptly.
Surveyors found that a treatment cart containing drugs and biologicals on two units was left unlocked and unattended, with no staff present. An LPN confirmed the cart belonged to the treatment nurse, who was not on the unit at the time, and acknowledged that it was unlocked. A consultant nurse later stated that treatment carts are required to be locked when not in use.
A resident with impaired cognition had a family member designated as POA with authority over health care and related decisions. The POA, concerned about the resident’s care, repeatedly requested the resident’s medical records but was directed to Medical Records and required to complete written forms, unlike residents who could obtain records via oral request. The POA initially completed the form incorrectly and was told to redo it; the corrected paperwork was not submitted until after the resident’s death, at which point additional documentation was required. Staff, including MR personnel, acknowledged that the POA was authorized to act for the resident and that the resident lacked capacity to request records independently, yet the POA never received the records, resulting in a failure to allow the representative to exercise the resident’s rights.
A resident with impaired cognition and a low BIMS score had a family member designated as POA for health care and related decisions. The POA became concerned about the resident’s care and requested the resident’s medical records but did not receive them. Nursing notes documented the POA’s expressed frustration about still waiting for the records. The Medical Records staff required the POA to complete authorization paperwork twice, stated the first set was completed incorrectly, and reported that corrected paperwork was not returned until after the resident’s death, at which point additional documentation was required. Staff acknowledged that the POA was authorized to act on the resident’s behalf and that, unlike a resident’s own oral request, the POA’s request was not honored without extra paperwork, resulting in the POA never obtaining the records.
A resident’s care plan was not revised to include a family member’s request that a specific housekeeper have no contact with or provide care to the resident in a secure unit, despite the family reporting that this housekeeper had previously caused the resident to fall and had been verbally restricted from working around the resident by prior and current leadership. The housekeeping supervisor and the housekeeper confirmed that the housekeeper no longer worked in the secure unit or with the resident, but the MDS nurse reported she was never informed of this change and therefore did not update the care plan, and the ADON confirmed the care plan lacked this information.
The facility failed to maintain required postings of Ombudsman contact information in accessible areas for residents and their representatives. Surveyor observations found that Ombudsman information was not posted in the facility and that, when present, it was placed on the side of a refrigerator in the Activities Room rather than in a clearly visible location. The Administrator reported that Ombudsman posters had been removed to allow painting and were not re-posted afterward. This deficiency had the potential to affect all residents in the facility, as they and their representatives would not be aware of how to contact the Ombudsman about concerns.
Clogged Janitor Room Floor Drain and Black Water Overflow
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s failure to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for all 89 residents when a janitor room floor drain sink on one unit remained clogged and inoperable. During observation of the 400 Unit, water was seen coming from the janitor room into the hallway, and when the door was opened, the floor drain was observed to be filled with approximately 10 inches of black, dirty water. A housekeeper reported that she had spilled water in the hall while dumping her mop bucket into the floor drain sink and had mopped it up, and she confirmed that the drain was clogged and that this sink was used to dispose of cleaning chemicals from mop buckets. The housekeeper stated she had informed her supervisor about the clogged drain, but it had not been fixed and that it had been this way for “a while.” The housekeeping supervisor reported she had made several work orders regarding the janitor room and water overflow and that she and her staff had been unclogging the drain themselves for months. The maintenance director stated that housekeeping is responsible for their department and should notify him if anything is needed, that he had no active work orders regarding water overflow, and that housekeeping should have submitted a work order for the janitor room. He also stated that the black water could carry bacteria, mold, E. coli, salmonella, and possibly Legionella. The administrator stated he expects staff to place work orders and report issues immediately so they can be addressed right away.
Unlocked and Unattended Treatment Cart on Two Units
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to secure a treatment cart containing drugs and biologicals on the 500 and 600 units, affecting all 27 residents identified on those units by the census list provided by the Administrator on 04/29/26. On 04/29/26 at 8:40 a.m., surveyors observed at the nurses’ station that a treatment cart on the 500/600 unit was left unlocked and unattended, with no staff present. During an interview at 8:44 a.m., an LPN confirmed that the treatment cart was unlocked and identified it as the Treatment Nurse’s cart, noting that the Treatment Nurse was not on the unit at that time. On 04/30/26 at 2:06 p.m., the facility’s consultant nurse stated that treatment carts are supposed to be locked when not in use. The report states that this deficient practice could result in residents obtaining medication not prescribed to them, resulting in adverse side effects. No specific resident medical histories or conditions at the time of the deficiency are described in the report.
Failure to Honor Resident’s POA Request for Medical Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to allow a resident’s designated representative, who held power of attorney (POA), to exercise the resident’s rights by obtaining the resident’s medical records. The resident had impaired cognitive function with a BIMS score of 5 and had formally designated a family member as POA effective 12/24/24, with authority over long‑term placement, health care, mental health including medications, and hospitalizations. According to the state agency complaint intake, the POA was concerned about the care the resident was receiving and requested the resident’s medical records before the resident passed away, but the facility never provided them. A nursing progress note documented that the POA approached the ADON and staff, stating she was still waiting on medical records and needed to sign whatever was required to obtain them, and expressed that the delay was unacceptable. Interviews and record review showed that the facility’s process for releasing records created a barrier for the POA, despite staff acknowledging her authority and the resident’s lack of capacity to request records independently. LPN #1 stated that family members requesting medical records had to go to Medical Records (MR). The MR staff confirmed that the POA requested the records and was given paperwork to complete on two occasions; the first form was filled out incorrectly, and the POA was told to redo it. MR reported that the corrected paperwork was not returned until after the resident died, at which point the facility required additional paperwork to release records after death. MR also acknowledged knowing that the POA could act on the resident’s behalf and that, unlike a resident’s oral request, the POA was required to complete written forms. As a result, the POA never obtained the resident’s medical records.
Failure to Provide Resident’s Legal Representative Access to Medical Records
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a resident’s legal representative with access to the resident’s medical records upon request. The resident had impaired cognitive function, an impaired thought process, and a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, and had designated a family member as Power of Attorney (POA) with authority over long-term placement, health care, mental health including medications, and hospitalizations. According to the state agency complaint intake, the POA was concerned about the care the resident was receiving and requested the resident’s medical records before the resident passed away, but the facility never provided them. Nursing progress notes documented that the POA approached the Assistant Director of Nursing and staff, stating they were still waiting on medical records and needed to sign whatever was required to obtain them, and expressed that the delay was unacceptable. Interviews and record review showed that the Medical Records (MR) staff required the POA to complete paperwork to obtain the resident’s medical records, even though MR acknowledged that the POA was legally authorized to act on the resident’s behalf and that the resident did not have the capacity to request records independently. MR reported giving the POA the required forms twice, stating the first set was filled out incorrectly and that the POA needed to complete them again. MR further stated that the POA did not return the corrected paperwork until after the resident’s death, at which point the facility required additional paperwork to release records following a resident’s passing. MR also stated that if a resident personally requested their own medical records, an oral request would be sufficient and no paperwork would be required. Despite the POA’s requests and authority, the POA never received the resident’s medical records. The facility’s policy on determining validity of authorization for release of protected health information required the Medical Records Director to determine whether an authorization was needed for disclosure, but the records were not provided to the POA prior to the resident’s death.
Failure to Update Care Plan With Family’s Restriction on Specific Staff Contact
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to revise a resident’s care plan to reflect a family member’s request regarding staff contact. Record review showed that the resident’s care plan, last revised on 06/26/25, did not include the family member’s request that a specific housekeeper not have contact with or provide care to the resident in the secure unit. The family member reported that this housekeeper had caused the resident to fall in her room, that the housekeeper was not a CNA in the secure unit, and that the previous Administrator and DON had informed the family member that the housekeeper would no longer work in the secure unit. The family member also stated that this information had been communicated to the current Administrator and DON when they started working at the facility. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that the housekeeper no longer worked in the secure unit and was not to have contact with or provide care to the resident, but this change was not documented in the resident’s care plan. The housekeeping supervisor stated that the housekeeper did not work in the secure unit due to the family member’s wishes. The housekeeper confirmed she no longer worked in the secure unit and was not to be in contact with or care for the resident. The MDS nurse, who is responsible for entering information into residents’ care plans, stated that staff had not informed her of the family member’s request and acknowledged that any changes to a resident’s care should be entered into the care plan. The ADON also confirmed that there was nothing in the care plan reflecting the family member’s wishes and stated that it should have been included.
Failure to Properly Post Ombudsman Contact Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to post the required Ombudsman contact information in areas accessible to residents and their representatives, as required by regulations mandating that names, addresses, and telephone numbers of pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups be posted along with a statement that residents may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency. On 04/29/26 at 9:35 AM, an observation of the facility revealed that staff did not have the Ombudsman information posted. Later that morning at 10:00 AM, an observation of the Activities Room showed that staff had placed an 8.5 x 11-inch paper with Ombudsman information roughly at eye level on the side of a refrigerator, rather than in a more generally visible or designated posting area. On 04/30/26 at 12:47 PM, the Administrator stated in an interview that the facility had taken down the Ombudsman posters in order to paint and confirmed that staff failed to put the Ombudsman posters back up after the painting was completed. This deficiency had the potential to affect all 89 residents identified on the census list provided by the Administrator on 04/29/26, as residents and their representatives would not be aware of how to contact the Ombudsman about concerns they have.
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 New Mexico — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in New Mexico
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).
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 New Mexico
- Provided change-in-condition (CIC) education to LPN and RN staff covering definition of CIC, appropriate provider communication, nursing follow-up and documentation responsibilities, consequences of delayed intervention, and importance of timely notification/early recognition and intervention (K - F0580 - NM)
- Ensured all nurses on duty since the event received CIC education with DON/designee verification to reinforce staff responsibility for timely CIC recognition and notification (K - F0580 - NM)
- Reviewed and clarified the non-emergent provider communication log process with the provider and administration team to define appropriate acuity of notifications (K - F0580 - NM)
- Required that changes of condition be reported directly to the provider and restricted the non-emergent log to non-emergent requests/medication refills to prevent delayed escalation (K - F0580 - NM)
- Updated the non-emergent provider communication log form to reflect the revised escalation/notification process (K - F0580 - NM)
Failure to Notify POA and Providers of Significant Changes in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify resident representatives and providers of significant changes in condition for two residents. For one resident with traumatic hemorrhage of the right cerebrum, carotid artery aneurysm, convulsions, and a cognitive communication deficit, the face sheet and POA documents identified the spouse as POA and first emergency contact, and the son as second emergency contact and secondary POA. Social services documentation and nursing notes showed that this resident explicitly stated that her husband should be the first person notified of any changes in condition and her son the second. Despite this, multiple SBAR forms documented repeated changes in condition, including abnormal vital signs with unresponsiveness, new swallowing issues, a positive COVID test, swallowing difficulties, a fall with head injury, an altercation with another resident, a seizure, and another fall. In each of these events, staff notified only the resident’s daughter‑in‑law, identified as the resident representative, and did not notify the husband or son as emergency contacts/POA. Interviews further confirmed the pattern of non‑notification of the appropriate decision‑makers for this resident. The son reported that the facility did not notify him after any of the resident’s changes in condition and that he learned of these events from the resident representative instead. The husband/POA stated he did not recall being notified by the facility regarding any of the changes in condition and did not know who the facility contacted. The resident representative stated that staff began contacting her instead of the husband and son, sometimes because they did not answer the phone, and acknowledged that this practice bothered the son. The Unit Manager stated that facility nursing staff were required to call the POA and emergency contact for any change in condition and that if a family member onsite was not the POA, staff should still notify the POA. She acknowledged that nursing staff should have contacted the resident’s husband or son regarding the changes in condition, even when the resident representative was present in the facility. For the second resident, who had dementia with behavioral disturbance, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic CHF, and hypoglycemia, and who was documented as full code with all interventions, the facility failed to notify a provider when the resident exhibited an acute change in condition. Nursing progress notes documented that in the early morning hours, the resident was mouth breathing with gurgling sounds in the deep throat, had non‑productive coughing, an oxygen saturation of 92% on 3 liters of oxygen, and was uneasily aroused by tactile/verbal stimuli, with abnormal lung sounds including bilateral upper lobe rhonchi and diminished lower lobe sounds. The nurse recorded that the primary care physician was made aware via a non‑emergent in‑house communication log for further evaluation and treatment, and that the oncoming nurse would be informed. Later that morning, the nurse was called to the resident’s room and found the resident unresponsive, with CPR initiated and a code blue performed by EMS, and the resident was pronounced dead. Additional interviews and documentation clarified that the nurse practitioner considered the information placed in the non‑emergent provider logbook inappropriate for that communication channel and stated that staff should have called a facility provider and 911 immediately regarding the resident’s status, rather than using the non‑emergent log. The DON stated that the first time she was made aware of the situation was when the code blue was called and that staff were required to notify a provider for any change in condition; review of the on‑call provider log showed no calls for this resident on the relevant dates. A CNA reported that when she arrived, the resident was not responding or opening her eyes, was coughing with gurgling sounds, and appeared very pale, and that she and another CNA could not obtain a pulse before summoning the nurse and initiating the code blue. The nurse who cared for the resident that morning stated she obtained but did not document vital signs, recalled an oxygen saturation of 88% on 2 liters improved to 92% on 3 liters, noted coughing with inability to expel mucus, and believed the resident was at baseline, so she did not call the on‑call provider and instead wrote in the non‑emergent log. The oncoming nurse stated she was told the resident was not awake or alert enough to receive morning medications, did not see the resident until notified by the CNA that the resident was not breathing, and stated that if a sternal rub was necessary, the nurse performing it should have called the provider. These actions and inactions led surveyors to identify an Immediate Jeopardy related to failure to notify providers and representatives of changes in condition.
Removal Plan
- Provide change in condition (CIC) education to LPN and RN staff, including definition of CIC, appropriate communication to providers, nursing follow-up and documentation responsibilities, consequences of delayed intervention, and importance of timely notification/early recognition and intervention.
- Ensure all nurses on duty since the event receive the CIC education and understand their responsibility (DON/designee verification).
- Conduct an initial review of the non-emergent provider communication log process with the provider and administration team to clarify appropriate acuity of notifications.
- Require that changes of condition be reported directly to the provider; restrict the non-emergent log to non-emergent patient requests or medication refills.
- Update the non-emergent provider communication log form to reflect the revised process.
- Place the agency nurse who documented the progress note on administrative leave pending review of care.
- Conduct an in-person meeting with the agency nurse by two nurse managers to review documentation and provide one-on-one education regarding substandard care.
- Notify the agency of the event and investigation involving the agency nurse.
- Assess and document vital signs (temperature, pulse, respirations, blood pressure, oxygen saturation) on every resident in the facility.
- Have nurse managers conduct room-to-room visual inspections to verify proof of life and resident stability.
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.
