Citations in Tennessee
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Tennessee.
Statistics for Tennessee (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Tennessee
Electronic Medical Records Left Visible on Unattended Computers: Two residents' EMRs were left open and visible on unattended computers during wound care and med pass. One resident had HTN, DM, and malnutrition with moderate cognitive impairment, and another resident had acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, HTN, DM2, and Afib with intact cognition. Staff confirmed the screens were left open and available for public view.
Medication cart security was not maintained for Cart 700. Facility policy required the cart to be locked when out of the medication nurse’s sight, but an RN walked away from the cart and later entered a resident room while leaving it unlocked and unattended. The RN confirmed the cart should have been locked, and the President of Clinical Operations confirmed carts should be locked when unattended.
Staff failed to follow diabetes management policies and provider orders for multiple residents by not consistently notifying the MD/NP of blood glucose (BG) readings outside ordered and policy-defined parameters and not documenting required treatment for hypoglycemia. One resident with Type 2 DM, severe cognitive impairment, and a high A1C had repeated episodes of severe hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia over several months, with numerous BG values above 400–500 mg/dL and below 70 mg/dL that were neither reported to the provider nor accompanied by documented administration of Glutose or glucagon. This resident later experienced altered mental status, hypotension, and a BG of 600 mg/dL, was transferred to the ED with a BG of 1025 mg/dL and diagnosed with DKA and related complications, and subsequently had a large acute to subacute cerebral infarct. Another resident on Lantus and Humalog sliding-scale insulin had multiple high and low BG readings, including values in the 40s and 50s mg/dL, without consistent documentation of hypoglycemia treatment or provider notification when thresholds were met. Similar unreported abnormal BG readings were found in other residents, leading surveyors to cite noncompliance with F684 for failure to provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders and resident needs.
The facility failed to report an allegation of staff-to-resident physical and verbal abuse to the state survey agency within the required two-hour timeframe. A resident with severe dementia, muscle weakness, and difficulty walking, who required two-person assistance for ADLs, became combative during perineal care, and multiple CNAs later reported that a CNA had roughly grabbed the resident’s arms, slammed the resident’s wrists onto the chest, used profanity, made threats, and stated the resident belonged in a psychiatric ward. These CNAs did not report their concerns immediately, and the allegation was not submitted to the state reporting agency until two days after the incident, contrary to facility policy and the expectations stated by the DON and ADM.
A resident with COPD, lack of coordination, and anxiety disorder had a prior fall with a care plan intervention for nonskid strips at the bedside. The facility later failed to keep that intervention in place, and the resident was found on the floor beside the bed after hollering for help, resulting in a left hip fracture and surgical repair. Surveyors observed the nonskid strips were not at the bedside, and the DON, ADM, LPN, and RD confirmed they were missing.
Resident Trust Funds Exceeded Medicaid Asset Limit: The facility failed to keep resident trust fund balances under the $2,000 Medicaid asset limit for multiple residents. Record review showed several residents with diagnoses including dementia, CHF, CKD, diabetes, hemiplegia, bipolar disorder, Parkinson’s disease, and traumatic subdural hemorrhage had trust fund balances ranging from $2,769.53 to $9,020.33, and both the BOM and Administrator stated the limit was under $2,000.
Electronic Medical Records Left Visible on Unattended Computers
Penalty
Summary
Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential was not maintained when electronic medical records were left open and visible to others. Facility policy stated resident health information must remain private and that the MAR must remain closed or covered when not in direct use. Resident #76, who was admitted with diagnoses including hypertension, diabetes, and malnutrition and had a BIMS score of 8 indicating moderate impairment, was observed on 5/11/2026 at 2:37 PM with the wound care cart unattended and the computer on top of the cart open to the resident's electronic medical record and available for public view. The wound care nurse later returned and confirmed the screen had been left open to Resident #76's record. Resident #41, who was admitted with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, essential hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and had a BIMS score of 13 indicating cognitive intactness, was observed during medication administration on Cart 700 on 5/12/2026 at 7:40 AM when RN A walked away from the medication cart leaving the computer open and the resident's electronic medical record available for public view. A later observation at 8:01 AM showed RN A entering a room while the computer remained open with Resident #41's electronic medical information still visible. RN A confirmed the screen was open and available for public view, and the President of Clinical Operations later confirmed the electronic medical record should not be unattended and left open for public view.
Medication Cart Left Unlocked and Unattended
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure medications were securely stored in 1 medication cart, Cart 700, out of 3 medication carts reviewed. The facility policy titled, Medication Administration General Guidelines, dated 9/18, stated that during medication administration, the medication cart is to be kept closed and locked when out of sight of the medication nurse. During observation on 5/12/2026 at 7:40 AM, RN A walked away from Cart 700, leaving the cart unlocked and unattended. During another observation on 5/12/2026 at 8:01 AM, RN A entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and again left the medication cart unlocked and unattended. RN A later confirmed she should have locked the medication cart when it was left unattended, and the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations confirmed the medication carts should be locked when left unattended.
Failure to Follow Diabetes Management Policies and Notify Provider of Abnormal Blood Glucose Levels
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its own diabetes management policies and physician/NP orders for monitoring and responding to abnormal blood glucose (BG) levels, including required provider notification and treatment for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Facility policies defined hypoglycemia as BG <70 mg/dL and required immediate provider notification and administration of rapidly absorbed glucose or glucagon, and defined thresholds for hyperglycemia that required provider contact when BG values were >250 mg/dL more than once in 24 hours or >300 mg/dL more than once over two consecutive days. For residents with sliding-scale insulin orders, the MARs also contained explicit instructions to notify the physician or NP when BG readings exceeded specified ranges (e.g., >351–400 mg/dL and above). Despite these clear parameters, staff repeatedly failed to notify the provider or document required treatment when BG readings fell outside ordered or policy-defined ranges. Resident #1, who had Type 2 diabetes, acute kidney failure, depression, anxiety disorder, and a severely impaired BIMS score of 3, had an A1C of 9.2% in November 2025 and was on a consistent carbohydrate diet with dysphagia modifications and sliding-scale insulin lispro before meals. Throughout January, February, March, and April 2026, Resident #1’s Weights and Vitals Summary reports showed numerous episodes of severe hyperglycemia (often >400–500 mg/dL and above the sliding-scale notification thresholds) and multiple episodes of hypoglycemia with BG values as low as 42–54 mg/dL. On multiple dates, there was no documentation that Glutose or glucagon was administered for BG <70 mg/dL, and there was no evidence that the physician or NP was notified when BG values exceeded the facility’s policy thresholds or the sliding-scale notification parameters. The record also showed that after the sliding-scale insulin order was discontinued, staff still did not consistently notify the provider when BG values met the facility’s policy criteria for reporting. Resident #1 subsequently experienced clinical deterioration associated with very high BG levels. A progress note on 3/16/2026 documented altered mental status, functional decline, unresponsiveness, hypotension (BP 83/42), tachycardia, and a BG of 600 mg/dL, leading to transfer to the ED. Hospital records indicated presentation with gradually worsening condition over 2–3 days, hypoxia requiring oxygen, and a BG of 1025 mg/dL, with diagnoses including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), acute kidney injury, UTI, acute toxic metabolic encephalopathy, and hypotension, and treatment with an insulin drip in the ICU. After return to the facility, Resident #1 continued to have unreported hypoglycemic readings (e.g., 67–69 mg/dL with no documented Glutose or glucagon) and further episodes of severe hyperglycemia that met policy thresholds for provider notification but were not reported. Later in March, the resident was again sent to the hospital with left-sided weakness and facial droop, and imaging showed a large acute to subacute infarct involving the right parietal and occipital lobes. Other sampled residents also had unreported abnormal BG readings. Resident #2, with orders for Lantus and Humalog sliding-scale insulin, had multiple hyperglycemic readings above the sliding-scale notification thresholds (e.g., 376–478 mg/dL) and several hypoglycemic episodes with BG values between 43–54 mg/dL. On several of these occasions, there was no documentation that Glutose or glucagon was administered, and no evidence that the physician or NP was notified when BG values met either the sliding-scale notification parameters or the facility’s policy thresholds. For at least one hypoglycemic episode (BG 43 mg/dL), medication treatment was documented, but other low readings lacked such documentation. Similar patterns of unreported abnormal BG values and lack of documented hypoglycemia treatment were identified for additional residents reviewed for medication administration, contributing to the finding that the facility failed to ensure appropriate treatment and provider notification for out-of-parameter BG readings. Surveyors determined that the facility’s failure to ensure Resident #1 received care and services to maintain BG levels within a safe range, and to follow policies and orders for provider notification and hypoglycemia management, resulted in Immediate Jeopardy at F684. The Immediate Jeopardy period was identified as beginning on 1/1/2026 and was later removed, but noncompliance at F684 continued at a lower scope and severity for ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of corrective actions.
Failure to Timely Report Staff-to-Resident Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of staff-to-resident physical and verbal abuse to the state survey agency within the required two-hour timeframe. Facility policy required any partner with direct or indirect knowledge of events that might constitute abuse, neglect, misappropriation of patient property, or exploitation to report immediately, but not later than two hours if the events involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, and not later than 24 hours if they did not. Resident #89, admitted with severe dementia with agitation, muscle weakness, and difficulty walking, required assistance of two staff for ADLs. A Facility Reported Incident form documented that on 01/12/2026 at 12:00 PM, the resident became combative during perineal care and witnesses observed CNA #4 strike and pinch the resident several times, hold the resident by the wrists, make threatening comments, and use inappropriate language. However, this allegation was not submitted to the state reporting agency until 01/14/2026 at 2:57 PM. Witness statements from CNAs #3, #5, and #6 described multiple episodes of rough and aggressive behavior by CNA #4 toward Resident #89 during care on 01/12/2026 and 01/13/2026, including roughly taking the resident’s arms, cursing at the resident, slamming the resident’s wrists onto the chest, making threats, and telling the resident they belonged in a psychiatric ward while pushing the resident’s arms into the chest. The DON stated that on 01/14/2026 these CNAs reported the allegations of abuse from the prior dates, and confirmed that her expectation was that allegations of abuse be reported immediately. The Administrator similarly stated that staff were expected to report allegations of abuse immediately and no later than two hours from when the abuse occurred, and that the facility had two hours to report the allegation to the state reporting agency. He acknowledged that CNAs #3, #5, and #6 did not report the allegations in a timely manner, resulting in the late reporting of the abuse allegation to the state survey agency.
Failure to Implement Fall Intervention After Prior Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a fall-related care plan intervention for Resident #7 after a fall on 5/15/2025. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including COPD, lack of coordination, and anxiety disorder, and a quarterly MDS assessment indicated a BIMS score of 15, showing the resident was cognitively intact and independent with all aspects of care. After the 5/15/2025 fall, nursing documentation stated the resident was found sitting on the floor after trying to get to the bathroom and slipping, and the incident report identified the root cause as footwear, with a new intervention of nonskid strips to the exiting side of the bed. The comprehensive care plan dated 5/15/2025 included the intervention of nonskid strips to the bedside. However, the facility later failed to have those nonskid strips in place. On 4/12/2026, Resident #7 was again found on the floor beside the bed after hollering for help, and the incident report and nursing note documented the fall. A radiology report from that date showed a left intertrochanteric fracture, and an operative note dated 4/15/2026 documented internal fixation of the left hip. During observations on 4/21/2026, surveyors found no nonskid strips at the bedside, and both the LPN and DON confirmed they were not in place. The DON acknowledged the resident had fallen on 5/15/2025 and that nonskid strips had been the intervention, but they were not present at the time of the later fall. The ADM also confirmed the strips were not in place, and the RD stated they were placed only after the facility was informed on 4/21/2026 that they were missing.
Resident Trust Funds Exceeded Medicaid Asset Limit
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain resident trust fund balances under the $2,000 Medicaid asset limit for 10 of 111 sampled residents. Review of the American Council on Aging website showed that in 2026, a single Medicaid nursing home applicant in Tennessee must have assets under $2,000. Medical record and trust fund statement reviews showed multiple residents had balances above that limit, including residents with diagnoses such as atrial fibrillation, dementia, depression, dysphagia, anxiety, hemiplegia, heart failure, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia, bipolar disorder, chronic respiratory failure, Parkinson’s disease, traumatic subdural hemorrhage, malnutrition, and hypertension. Resident trust fund statements dated 4/22/2026 showed balances of $4,945.96 for Resident #11, $7,764.26 for Resident #16, $3,324.09 for Resident #38, $2,950.01 for Resident #86, $5,350.97 for Resident #92, $3,874.46 for Resident #101, $3,931.97 for Resident #110, $2,769.53 for Resident #119, $5,911.60 for Resident #128, and $9,020.33 for Resident #177, all above the $2,000 limit. During interview, the BOM stated the resident trust account limit was $2,000.00, and the Administrator also stated resident trust accounts should be under $2,000.00.
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 Tennessee — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Tennessee
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 2 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 2-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 2 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 2 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 2 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.
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.
