Citations in Mississippi
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Mississippi.
Statistics for Mississippi (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Compliance trends in Mississippi
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).
Latest Citations in Mississippi
A resident with advanced dementia and severe cognitive impairment sustained a bruised left eye and facial bruising after being struck by a CNA. The CNA initially claimed the injury occurred accidentally while pushing the resident to a dining table and denied hitting the resident, but an LPN and another CNA reported that the resident stated she had hit the CNA and was hit back in the eye, demonstrating a slapping motion. Nursing documentation described left orbital ecchymosis, bruising along the bridge of the nose and cheek, tenderness, minimal edema, and the resident’s complaint of soreness, confirming a significant injury resulting from the physical abuse.
The facility failed to protect residents’ right to a dignified and comfortable environment when it did not effectively manage one cognitively impaired resident’s ongoing nighttime yelling, which repeatedly disrupted the sleep of two cognitively intact residents. Staff, including a CNA, the DON, and the Administrator, were aware that this resident, diagnosed with dementia and psychosis, frequently yelled and screamed at night while often sleeping during the day. Progress notes documented nighttime hollering, and interviews confirmed that the disruptive behavior persisted over time, interfering with other residents’ ability to rest.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to protect two residents’ rights to dignity and privacy during routine care. One resident, with moderate cognitive impairment and dependent for toilet hygiene, was observed receiving incontinence care while uncovered, with the room door open and the privacy curtain only partially drawn, allowing visibility into the hallway despite facility policy requiring full privacy. Another resident, dependent for eating and with hemiplegia after a stroke, was assisted with lunch by a CNA who stood over the resident instead of sitting at eye level as required by the facility’s feeding skills checklist. Staff interviews, including with CNAs, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator, confirmed that existing policies and in-service training directed staff to provide privacy during incontinence care and to sit beside residents when assisting with meals to ensure dignified care.
A resident with epilepsy, skin infection, an upper arm wound, gastrostomy status, and moderate cognitive impairment was observed twice resting in bed with a lunch tray while the call light was not within reach—once on the floor under the bed and once hanging behind the mattress, out of sight. The resident reported being able to use the call light but not knowing where it was. Staff, including CNAs, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator, stated that call lights are expected to be left within residents’ reach and that training and competencies address this requirement, but there was no specific written policy on call light placement.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment, dependent for toilet hygiene and with multiple medical conditions, was observed receiving incontinent care in which a CNA removed a urine-soaked brief, changed the bed sheet, and applied a clean brief without performing any required perineal cleansing of the front or back. Facility policy and the peri-care skills checklist specified that male residents must have the perineal area, including the penis, scrotum, and inner thighs, washed, rinsed, and dried during incontinent care. The CNA later acknowledged having been trained and competency-checked on this procedure and knowing cleansing was required. Other staff, including a CNA supervisor, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator, confirmed that proper incontinent care includes full perineal cleansing in addition to brief changes, establishing that the observed omission did not follow facility policy or professional standards intended to prevent UTIs.
Surveyors found that staff failed to follow infection control practices during PEG tube and wound care. Two residents with PEG tubes had sites with visible brown, crusted or yellowish drainage that had not been cleaned for several days, despite physician orders for daily cleansing and, when indicated, dressings. In another case, a CNA provided peri-care for stool and then assisted with a stage IV sacral pressure ulcer dressing change without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene, contrary to facility policy and staff expectations for aseptic technique.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment when a resident’s room contained odorous soiled linens left on the floor and later placed on furniture with clean clothing, and the bed was made with torn linens exposing the mattress. Other residents reported that housekeeping did not clean under beds, and multiple large dead roaches were repeatedly observed under several beds, with one resident stating he often disposed of dead roaches himself. Residents also reported refusing to use the north shower room due to dirty clothing, feces, and residue on shower chairs and floors; an observation confirmed the presence of soiled clothing, a soiled brief, and unidentified substances on the shower chair and floor, despite staff acknowledging that CNAs were expected to clean and sanitize the shower room after each use.
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, as evidenced by repeated observations of roaches and other insects in multiple resident rooms and common areas. Surveyors found gnats and dead roaches under beds, while several residents reported seeing roaches on ceilings, walls, and floors, including roaches falling onto them at night and having to remove dead roaches themselves. A family member reported bringing her own roach spray due to concerns about roaches in a loved one’s room. During a Resident Council meeting, roaches were seen crawling across the floor, and residents stated that roaches were commonly observed throughout the building. Although the contracted pest control provider reported monthly service focused mainly on entry points and exterior areas and facility staff described processes for reporting pests, the persistent roach activity showed the program was not effectively preventing or controlling pests.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions, who relied on phone contact with a seriously ill significant other, lost access to private communication after her personal cell phone was broken and sent out for repair. Facility policy guarantees residents access to a telephone and private communication, but there was no cordless phone available on the relevant hall, and staff, including the DON, SSD, and Administrator, confirmed there was no convenient method for residents on that hall to make private calls without arranging to use a staff office. This resulted in the resident having no readily available, private telephone option.
A resident with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, moderate cognitive impairment, and total dependence on staff for personal and toilet hygiene reported difficulty obtaining assistance with ADLs. Observation revealed the resident had ten long, dirty fingernails extending several millimeters beyond the fingertips with black material underneath, and the resident stated they needed cleaning and cutting. An LPN confirmed the nails were too long and dirty, acknowledged that nursing staff were responsible for daily and weekly fingernail checks and for providing fingernail care as part of ADLs, and noted that such nails could cause skin damage or scratches. The DON and Administrator both confirmed that personal hygiene and grooming are part of ADLs and are expected to be provided for all residents dependent on staff.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Physical Abuse by CNA
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from abuse, resulting in the resident being struck in the eye by a CNA. Facility records show that a CNA reported to an LPN that the resident had a bruised left eye and initially stated the injury may have occurred while pushing the resident to the dining table due to the resident’s short, stooped posture. The CNA also reported that the resident used a racial slur toward her and that she verbally responded but denied striking the resident. However, subsequent interviews and the facility’s investigation determined that the resident’s injury was not caused by accidental contact with the dining table. Interviews with staff revealed conflicting accounts that led to the conclusion that the resident had been hit. An LPN stated that the resident reported being hit in the eye by the CNA and that another CNA heard a commotion and later observed bruising to the resident’s left eye. When this second CNA asked what happened, the resident reported that she hit the CNA and was hit back in the eye, while making a motion consistent with a slap. The LPN confirmed that the resident gave a similar account to her, indicating that the CNA had physically struck the resident. The resident involved was admitted to the Memory Care Unit with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, cognitive communication deficit, and unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, and had a BIMS score of 5 indicating severe cognitive impairment. A nursing progress note documented an acute follow-up assessment of left orbital ecchymosis, describing a dark red circular bruise to the left eye region, dark purple bruising along the lateral bridge of the nose extending to the superior left cheek, tenderness on palpation, minimal edema, and the resident’s complaint that the area was sore. Due to advanced Alzheimer’s disease, the resident was unable to reliably express additional symptoms, but the documented physical findings supported that the resident sustained a significant injury to the eye area as a result of being struck by the CNA.
Failure to Protect Residents’ Right to Rest Due to Unmanaged Nighttime Yelling
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a dignified and comfortable environment by not effectively addressing ongoing disruptive nighttime behaviors of one resident that interfered with other residents’ ability to rest. Resident #1, admitted with diagnoses including Psychosis and Dementia and a BIMS score of 4 indicating severely impaired cognition, had documented episodes of hollering and yelling during nighttime hours, as noted in progress notes on 3/12/26 and 3/13/26. Interviews with cognitively intact residents, Resident #2 and Resident #3 (both with BIMS scores of 15), revealed that they frequently experienced disrupted sleep due to Resident #1 yelling loudly at night, while the environment was generally quiet during the day. Staff interviews confirmed awareness of the pattern of behavior. CNA #1, who worked both day and night shifts, reported that Resident #1 frequently yelled and screamed at intervals throughout the night and was generally quiet and often slept during the day, with staff assisting the resident out of bed into a geri-chair during both day and nighttime hours. The DON acknowledged the facility was aware of Resident #1’s increased nighttime yelling and extended daytime rest, attributing it to the resident’s Dementia and Psychosis, and stated that interventions such as monitoring, repositioning, offering care, and attempts at redirection had not stopped the behaviors. The Administrator also confirmed awareness of concerns that nighttime noise from Resident #1 affected other residents’ ability to rest. Despite this awareness and ongoing complaints from other residents, the disruptive nighttime yelling continued, resulting in a failure to uphold residents’ rights to a dignified existence and a comfortable environment.
Failure to Ensure Privacy and Dignified Care During Incontinence Care and Feeding
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents were treated with dignity and provided privacy during care, as required by resident rights policies and skills checklists. The facility’s Nursing Facility Resident Rights policy guaranteed residents the right to be treated with dignity, courtesy, and respect, and to have privacy during personal care. Facility skills checklists for feeding and peri/incontinent care specified that staff should sit facing residents at eye level when feeding and provide privacy by drawing curtains and closing doors during incontinence care. For Resident #2, surveyors observed a CNA providing incontinent care without closing the resident’s room door and with the privacy curtain only partially drawn. From the surveyor’s position at the bottom right corner of the bed, it was possible to see into the hallway while the resident was uncovered and exposed. Resident #2’s records showed admission with diagnoses including epilepsy, infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, an open wound of the left upper arm, and gastrostomy status. A recent MDS assessment documented a BIMS score of 11, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and that the resident was dependent for toilet hygiene. The CNA later confirmed awareness that incontinence care required provision of privacy and that she had been trained and competency-checked on this requirement. For Resident #3, surveyors observed a CNA assisting the resident with eating while standing over the resident rather than sitting beside her, contrary to the facility’s feeding skills checklist and training. The DON intervened during the observation and instructed the CNA that staff were to sit next to residents while assisting with eating. The CNA stated she had forgotten to sit beside the resident. Resident #3’s records showed recent admission with diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke), anemia, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right dominant side, and a baseline care plan indicating the resident was dependent for eating. Other staff interviews, including with a CNA supervisor, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator, confirmed that staff were trained at least monthly on residents’ rights, respectful and dignified care, provision of privacy during incontinence care, and the expectation that staff sit beside residents when assisting with eating.
Failure to Maintain Accessible Call Light for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s call light was maintained within reach as required by the facility’s feeding skills checklist. The skills checklist for feeding a resident specifies that staff must leave the call light within the resident’s reach after feeding. For Resident #2, surveyors observed on two separate occasions that the call light was not accessible. On one observation, the resident was awake in bed with a lunch tray on the overbed table, and the call light was found lying on the floor under the head of the bed. The resident stated he could use his call light but did not know where it was. On a subsequent observation, Resident #2 was again in bed with a lunch tray in front of him, and the call light was hanging behind the mattress at the head of the bed, out of his sight and reach. The resident again stated he could use the call light but did not know where it was. Record review showed the resident had epilepsy, an infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, an open wound of the left upper arm, gastrostomy status, and a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Staff interviews with CNAs, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator confirmed that call lights were expected to be within residents’ reach and answered timely, and that staff had received in-service training and competency checks on leaving call lights within reach. The Administrator also confirmed there was no specific written policy regarding call light placement.
Failure to Provide Required Perineal Cleansing During Incontinent Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide incontinent care in accordance with its own peri-care policy and professional standards of practice for a male resident who was dependent for toilet hygiene. The facility’s written policy for peri/incontinent care for male residents, revised in January 2023, required cleansing of the perineal area starting at the urethra and working outward, including washing and rinsing the penis, scrotum, inner thighs, and perineal area front and back, followed by thorough drying. Record review showed the resident had diagnoses including epilepsy, infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, an open wound of the left upper arm, and gastrostomy status, and a Quarterly MDS with a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, with the resident assessed as dependent for toilet hygiene. On the observed date and time, CNA #1 provided incontinent care to this resident by removing a wet urine-soaked brief, changing the fitted sheet, and applying a clean, dry brief without cleansing the resident’s perineal area, front or back, contrary to facility policy. During a subsequent interview, CNA #1 acknowledged she had received in-service training and competency check-offs on peri-care and knew she was supposed to cleanse the perineal area but did not do so, stating she was nervous. Additional interviews with CNA #2 (CNA supervisor and scheduler), an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator confirmed that staff were trained using the Peri Care–Incontinent Care Skills Checklist and that proper incontinent care includes cleansing the perineal area, front and back, in addition to changing the brief. The failure to perform the required cleansing during incontinent care constituted the cited deficiency related to prevention of urinary tract infections.
Failure to Maintain Infection Control Practices During PEG Tube and Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its infection prevention and control program by not maintaining aseptic technique and not providing ordered dressing changes for residents with PEG tubes and a sacral pressure injury. Facility policies on infection control and clean dressing changes required wound care to be provided in a manner that decreases the potential for infection and cross-contamination, including removal of soiled dressings with gloves, discarding gloves, performing hand hygiene, and donning clean gloves before continuing care. The peri-care audit tool also required glove removal, hand hygiene, and re-gloving after peri-care. These standards were not followed during multiple observed care episodes. For one resident with a PEG tube and diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, functional quadriplegia, and gastrostomy status, surveyors observed the PEG tube site without a dressing and with a yellowish-brown substance beneath and around the external skin disk extending about one-fourth inch onto surrounding skin. A CNA and an LPN both confirmed there was no dressing in place and acknowledged the drainage at the site. The LPN stated PEG tube site care should be completed daily and as needed for increased drainage and acknowledged that, with no dressing and the amount of drainage present, there was no way to tell when the site was last cleaned. Record review showed a physician order, effective several months prior, for daily cleansing of the PEG tube stoma with normal saline, patting dry, and applying a dry drain dressing to avoid skin breakdown. For another resident with severe protein-calorie malnutrition and gastrostomy status, the PEG tube site was observed with thick brown, crusted substance beneath the external skin disk extending approximately one-half to three-fourths of an inch to the surrounding area. The resident reported the site had not been cleaned in about three days and later stated they might have to clean it themselves. Follow-up observations confirmed the site remained unclean with visible drainage, and an LPN and the DON both confirmed the presence of thick, brown drainage and that the site had not been cleaned in several days, despite an order for daily cleansing with soap and water, rinsing, patting dry, and leaving open to air or applying a dry dressing if drainage was present. In a separate observation involving a resident with a stage IV sacral pressure ulcer and severe cognitive impairment, a CNA provided peri-care for stool soiling, then immediately assisted with wound care using the same gloves worn during peri-care, without performing hand hygiene or changing gloves. The CNA, treatment nurse, DON, and ADON all acknowledged that hand hygiene and glove change should have occurred between peri-care and wound care and that this represented an infection control concern.
Failure to Maintain Clean Resident Rooms and Shower Facilities
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, as required by its Resident Rights & Quality of Life Policy. For one resident, surveyors observed a bag of odorous soiled linens resting on the floor of the room, and the resident’s bed was made with a bedspread that had a football-sized hole exposing the mattress. The resident, who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 and had Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, reported that it was not unusual for bags of soiled linens to be left on the floor and for bedding to be damaged. A CNA confirmed that soiled linens were commonly left in bags on the floor after morning care and that torn bedding should not be used, and later placed the bag of soiled linens on the resident’s furniture where his clean clothing was hanging. The resident remained upset the following day, and a dead roach was observed under his bed near the headboard. Additional deficiencies were identified in other resident rooms. One resident with End Stage Renal Disease and a severely impaired cognition (BIMS score of 5) reported that housekeeping did not clean under the bed; surveyors observed three large dead roaches under the bed, which remained there the following day. When the Housekeeping Supervisor later observed the room, five dead roaches were present under the bed, and he stated the area should not have been in that condition. Another resident, with a diffuse traumatic brain injury and a moderately impaired cognition (BIMS score of 10), reported frequently picking up and disposing of dead roaches himself because staff did not remove them, and a large dead roach was observed under his bed. The facility also failed to maintain a clean and sanitary north shower room. During a Resident Council interview, multiple cognitively intact and moderately impaired residents reported refusing to use the shower room due to cleanliness concerns, including observations of dirty clothing, feces, and residue on shower chairs and floors. A housekeeper stated that while she cleaned the shower rooms multiple times a day, CNAs were responsible for cleaning and sanitizing the shower room after each use and that she had observed occasions when CNAs failed to do so. A subsequent observation of the north shower room revealed soiled clothing, including a soiled brief, on a shower chair, a yellow fluid-like substance on the floor and shower chair, and a white powdery substance on the floor, with no staff present. The Social Services Assistant, DON, and Administrator each acknowledged that staff were expected to clean and sanitize the shower room after each use.
Ongoing Roach Activity Demonstrates Ineffective Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as required by its pest control policy dated 9/1/2014, which states the center will maintain an ongoing program to keep the building free of insects and rodents. Surveyors observed multiple instances of roach and insect activity in resident rooms and common areas. In one cognitively intact resident’s room, gnats were seen flying and a dead roach was later found under the bed near the headboard. Another resident’s room contained three large dead roaches under the bed on two consecutive days; this resident reported that roaches were regularly seen in the room, especially at night, crawling on the ceiling and falling onto him and his roommate, and that staff had been notified but he had not seen staff respond to assess or treat the issue. A third resident reported seeing roaches on the ceiling and under the bed and stated he often removed dead roaches himself because staff did not; a large dead roach was observed under his bed. A family member of another resident reported feeling it was necessary to bring her own roach spray due to concerns about roaches in the resident’s room and stated she was told she could not keep the spray in the room, expressing concern that the roach problem needed to be addressed. During a Resident Council meeting, two large roaches were observed crawling across the floor, and residents reported that roaches were commonly seen in rooms and common areas, including on walls, ceilings, and floors, particularly at night. The contracted pest control provider reported he provides monthly services, focusing on different areas each visit, primarily treating entry points and exterior areas, and stated he had not personally observed roaches and received only occasional complaints. Facility leadership, including the housekeeping supervisor, DON, and Maintenance Director, described expectations that staff report pest sightings and that pest control services are available monthly and as needed, but the ongoing presence of roaches and dead insects in resident rooms and common areas demonstrated that the pest control program was not effectively preventing or controlling pests.
Failure to Ensure Resident Access to Private Telephone Communication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident’s right to reasonable access to and privacy in the use of a telephone for communication. Facility policy on Resident Rights, revised December 2016, states that residents are guaranteed access to a telephone, mail, and email, and the ability to communicate in person and by mail, email, and telephone with privacy. Resident #1 was admitted on 12/18/24 with diagnoses including Sjogren syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, and morbid obesity. During an interview, the resident reported that she had dropped and broken her personal cellular telephone, which she had used for private communication, and that the facility did not have any telephone that was convenient for her to use privately. She stated that no staff had offered her the use of a staff office or any other mechanism for private communication, and she was upset because she relied on telephone contact with her significant other, who had cancer and was unable to visit. Observations and staff interviews confirmed the lack of accessible, private telephone options for residents on South Hall. An observation on the 100 Hall revealed there was no cordless telephone available for resident use. The DON confirmed that the facility did not have a method to provide residents on South Hall with private communication without first making arrangements or an appointment to use a staff office, and that the cordless telephones in the facility did not have sufficient range to reach South Hall. The SSD confirmed there were no cordless telephones at the South Hall nurses’ station that could be taken to residents’ rooms and acknowledged that Resident #1’s cell phone had been broken and sent out for repair. The Administrator also confirmed that residents on South Hall did not have a method for private communication without prior arrangements and acknowledged that access to private communication is a guaranteed resident right.
Failure to Provide Adequate ADL Assistance for Personal Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) to maintain personal hygiene for one resident who was dependent on staff for care. Facility policy on ADLs, revised March 2018, stated that residents unable to carry out ADLs independently would receive services necessary to maintain good grooming and personal and oral hygiene. Record review showed the resident was admitted with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension, had a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, and required substantial/maximal assistance for personal hygiene and was dependent for toilet hygiene. A complainant reported that the resident had expressed difficulty getting staff to provide assistance with ADLs. During an observation and interview with the resident, accompanied by an LPN, the resident reported ongoing difficulty obtaining assistance with ADLs. The surveyor observed that the resident had ten long, dirty fingernails protruding 3.0 to 3.5 millimeters past the fingertips, with a black substance beneath all fingernails; the resident stated they needed cleaning and cutting and were too long. The LPN described the fingernails as too long and dirty, confirmed that nursing staff were responsible for checking fingernails daily during care and weekly during body audits, and acknowledged that staff were responsible for providing fingernail care as part of ADLs. The LPN also confirmed that long, dirty, unkempt fingernails had the potential to cause damage or scratches to the resident’s skin. The DON stated she was not aware of any complaints from the resident but confirmed her expectation that ADLs for residents dependent on staff for personal hygiene would be maintained and provided as needed, and that licensed nurses trimmed fingernails for some residents while any nursing staff could clean under fingernails. The Administrator confirmed that personal hygiene and grooming were part of resident ADLs and were expected to be provided for all dependent residents.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release June 24, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Some of the Latest Corrective Actions taken by Facilities in Mississippi
- Implemented required elopement-policy in-service with a quiz to validate comprehension and required all staff (including contract staff) to complete it before working their next scheduled shift, with Administrator monitoring compliance (J - F0689 - MS)
- Changed the main entry door code to strengthen access control (J - F0689 - MS)
- Updated the entry screening kiosk to add a visitor reminder and attestation requiring visitors to agree that no resident comes in or out with them and triggering a staff alert if the visitor refused (J - F0689 - MS)
- Implemented ongoing door-function and security audits by the Assistant Administrator for all doors (J - F0689 - MS)
- Implemented ongoing Quality Assurance oversight by holding follow-up QA meetings monthly for two months then quarterly thereafter to ensure sustained compliance (J - F0689 - MS)
Failure to Prevent Elopement of Two Cognitively Impaired Wanderers
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and prevent elopement for two residents with known wandering and elopement risk. Both residents were ambulatory, frequently walked throughout the facility together, and were known to staff as wanderers. Each resident had a diagnosis of dementia with severe cognitive deficits documented on their MDS assessments, and both had Wander/elopement alarms (wander guard bracelets) in place and used daily. The facility’s elopement/wandering policy stated that residents who are incapable of adequately protecting themselves and unable to determine when they are at risk for harm by wandering out of the facility should be placed on the resident security system to ensure safety. On the day of the incident, video surveillance later reviewed by the Administrator showed that a visitor entered an exit door on the B Unit at approximately 6:20 PM. The two residents at risk for elopement approached the door, and the visitor held the door open, allowing them to walk out of the building. The residents were wearing wander guard bracelets, and when they exited, the door alarm sounded. A nurse responded immediately to the alarm, exited the facility, and went down the walkway but did not see the residents. Staff were then alerted that the residents were missing, and a facility-wide search was initiated. Staff interviews and the facility’s documentation confirmed that the residents had previously been observed walking together throughout the facility and approaching doors, including the exit door involved in the incident. The Administrator reported that review of the video showed the two residents had approached the same door together two or three times prior to the elopement event. Despite their known patterns of wandering, severe cognitive impairment, and prior door-approach behavior, the residents were able to exit the facility unnoticed and unsupervised when the visitor held the door open. Staff ultimately located the residents across a four-lane high-capacity highway approximately 528 feet from the exit door and returned them to the facility, where body audits and assessments documented no injuries and intermittent confusion. The State Agency determined that the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent the elopement of these residents, who had exhibited exit-seeking behaviors, placed them and other residents at risk for wandering and elopement in a situation likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death and cited the facility at F689 with Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care. The residents’ medical records and elopement reports documented that both were confused, had impaired memory, and were identified as wanderers. One resident had a BIMS score of 3 and the other a BIMS score of 0, both indicating severe cognitive deficits. Progress notes and elopement reports recorded that staff were notified when the residents were not on the unit and could not be located, that all staff were engaged in searching, and that the residents were ultimately found outside and assisted back into the building. Interviews with CNAs and an LPN described hearing a Code W called, running outside, and seeing the residents across the street after they had crossed the four-lane highway. The DON acknowledged that the residents were always walking in the facility, often together, and that they had wandered to doors and looked out, and agreed that increased monitoring and not allowing visitors to have door codes could have prevented the residents from leaving the building.
Removal Plan
- Conducted a facility search.
- Notified police of missing residents.
- Director of Nursing interviewed staff and residents.
- Notified the Medical Director and residents’ families.
- Administrator and Director of Nursing checked the wander guard system and facility doors to ensure proper functioning.
- Returned Resident #1 and Resident #2 to the facility.
- Completed an incident report.
- Completed an emergency Quality Assurance meeting.
- Initiated in-service training for all staff on the elopement policy, including a quiz to validate comprehension, and required staff (including contract staff) to complete the in-service before working their next scheduled shift, with Administrator monitoring compliance.
- Responded immediately to the door alarm by sending staff outside to locate residents and notifying additional staff to assist with the search.
- Reviewed video surveillance and confirmed a visitor held the door open allowing residents to exit.
- Held an emergency Quality Assurance meeting with the Medical Director, Director of Nursing, Administrator, Regional Director, involved staff, and Infection Preventionist.
- Changed the main entry door code.
- Verified entrance door signage was in place instructing not to allow residents to exit unaccompanied.
- Identified residents at risk for elopement and ensured elopement bracelets/transmitters were functional and doors were locking appropriately.
- Reviewed care plans for residents at risk for elopement.
- Completed body audits on Resident #1 and Resident #2.
- Conducted audits verifying resident location, elopement risk, and wander guard bracelet function.
- Medical Records updated care profiles of residents at risk for wandering.
- Assistant Administrator began audits of all doors for function and security.
- Provided in-services on elopement policy and procedure, Resident Rights, and incident and accident reporting.
- Conducted elopement drills on each shift.
- Implemented monitoring systems to sustain compliance.
- Director of Nursing to monitor wander guard system checks three times weekly for four weeks or until substantial compliance is attained.
- Director of Nursing to monitor resident behavior for elopement attempts via incident reports, observations, and communications weekly for four weeks or until substantial compliance is attained.
- Quality Assurance Committee to meet for four weeks to review compliance with the plan of action, then continue routine Quality Assurance monitoring if no further concerns are noted.
- Administrator to hold follow-up Quality Assurance meetings monthly for two months then quarterly thereafter to ensure sustained compliance.
- Updated entry screening kiosk to include an additional reminder and attestation to ensure resident safety, requiring visitors to agree that no resident comes in or out with them and triggering a staff alert if the visitor refuses.
- Administration spoke directly with the visitor to confirm visitor policies and procedures.
Failure to Initiate CPR and Verify Code Status for Full-Code Hospice Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide emergency basic life support, including CPR, to a resident who was a documented full code, and to activate the emergency response system in accordance with physician orders and the resident’s advance directives. Facility policy titled “Emergency Procedure–Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation” stated that if an individual is found unresponsive and not breathing normally, a licensed staff member certified in CPR/BLS shall initiate CPR unless there is a known DNR order or obvious signs of irreversible death. The policy also directed staff to briefly assess for abnormal or absent breathing, instruct another staff member to activate the emergency response system and call 911, verify the individual’s DNR or code status, and then initiate the basic life support sequence of chest compressions, airway, and breathing. Record review showed that the resident had a “RESIDENT/FAMILY CONSENT FOR CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION” form dated and signed by the resident’s representative, indicating that CPR should be performed in case of extreme emergency. Additional documentation, including an Order Summary Report and a handwritten physician’s telephone order, confirmed a code status of “Full Code,” meaning the resident had chosen to receive CPR in the event of cardiac arrest or pulselessness. The resident had been admitted with diagnoses including severe protein-calorie malnutrition, heart failure, and atherosclerotic heart disease, was receiving hospice care, and was documented on the MDS as independent with decisions regarding tasks of daily life, with no noted memory problem. On the date of the incident at approximately 5:20 a.m., a CNA found the resident unresponsive and reported this to the nurse. LPN #1 went to the resident’s room, found the resident in bed unresponsive, attempted to obtain a pulse and blood pressure without success, and observed no rise or fall of the chest and no breath sounds. Progress notes documented that the LPN observed the resident was not breathing and was unable to obtain any vital signs, and that she notified the hospice nurse, the resident’s primary healthcare provider, the resident’s representative, the DON, and the Executive Director. There was no documentation of initiation of CPR or activation of the emergency response system. During interview, LPN #1 stated she did not “run a code” because the resident was on hospice and she assumed hospice patients were DNR. She acknowledged that she did not verify the resident’s code status in the chart or electronic record and that she accessed the binder only to obtain the hospice telephone number. The facility’s investigation confirmed that LPN #1 failed to check the resident’s code status and failed to initiate the emergency CPR procedure for a resident who was a full code, resulting in the resident not receiving CPR or emergency services and subsequently expiring at the facility.
Removal Plan
- Notify coroner, resident representative, Director of Nursing, Administrator and hospice of Resident #1's death
- Suspend Resident #1's assigned nurse pending the results of the investigation
- QA Committee to complete a root cause analysis to identify the cause of the failure to initiate CPR
- QA Committee to review Emergency Care, Resident Rights, Abuse-Neglect of Resident, Care Plans, and Comprehensive Person-Centered policies and determine whether updates are required
- Initiate nursing staff education on the Emergency Care policy prior to working until nursing staff education is achieved; do not allow nurses to work without in-servicing on the Emergency Care policy
- Provide training on Emergency Care/Code Status using a mock code with the clinical team
- Conduct post-training debriefing by the DON or Staff Development Nurse to evaluate learning
- Audit residents' medical records for accuracy of correct code status by the Medical Records Nurse
- Continue mock codes with debriefing to evaluate learning (conducted by DON, ADON or Staff Development Nurse)
- QA Committee to review results of mock code debriefings/evaluations and make recommendations/adjustments to the plan of correction as needed
- Conduct an Emergency QA Meeting with the interdisciplinary team members and the Medical Director to discuss findings and the plan of action
Failure to Timely Report and Investigate Verbal Abuse Allegation and Remove Alleged Perpetrator
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to administer operations in a way that ensured timely and effective response to an allegation of verbal abuse. A resident representative reported an allegation of verbal abuse involving Resident #1 on 2/14/26 at approximately 8:40 AM to an RN supervisor, providing an audio recording in which staff were heard cursing at the resident while the resident was heard screaming. The RN supervisor notified the DON at approximately 8:50 AM, and the DON notified the Administrator at approximately 9:01 AM. Despite this, the Administrator, who acknowledged awareness of state and federal reporting timeframes and whose job description includes ensuring reportable events are reported within regulatory requirements, did not ensure the allegation was reported to the State Agency within the required timeframes. The facility also failed to implement immediate protective measures and to promptly initiate an investigation after the allegation was reported. Staff schedules and interviews showed that the alleged perpetrator, CNA #2, continued to work in the facility after the allegation was reported on 2/14/26 and remained on duty until 2/16/26 at approximately 11:16 AM, when employment was terminated. Staff confirmed that neither the Administrator nor the DON came to the facility on 2/14/26 and that no staff interviews were conducted that day. The only intervention implemented on 2/14/26 was relocating Resident #1 to another unit at the request of the resident representative. Record review indicated that the facility had an Abuse Policy and Procedure requiring residents to be free from verbal, physical, mental, and sexual abuse and requiring that allegations of abuse be reported and investigated in accordance with regulatory requirements. The facility’s own investigation documented that the allegation was not reported to the State Agency until 2/16/26 and that staff interviews did not begin until 2/16/26. The Administrator confirmed being notified of the allegation on 2/14/26 at approximately 9:00 AM and confirmed awareness of the regulatory timeframes for reporting allegations of abuse. The facility did not have a separate Administration Policy, but the Administrator’s job description required leading operations in accordance with regulations and ensuring reportable events such as alleged abuse are reported to the correct entity within required timeframes.
Removal Plan
- Moved Resident #1 from Unit A to Unit B at the request of the family after discussion with Registered Nurse #1.
- Director of Nursing interviewed Resident #1 regarding the allegations of abuse, and she denied any such happenings.
- Director of Nursing assessed Resident #1 for any physical or emotional effects.
- Provided psychosocial support for 72 hours by the Social Services Director.
- Referred Resident #1 to the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner for evaluation.
- Director of Nursing, Staff Development, and Lead CNA provided education to all staff regarding the Facility Abuse Policy and Procedures.
- Corporate Nurse conducted an in-service with the Director of Nursing and Facility Administrator regarding abuse allegations, investigations, and proper reporting timeliness.
- Contacted CNA #1 multiple times to proceed with termination.
- Terminated CNA #2 upon review of the recording due to use of aggressive language.
- Educated all staff on the Abuse Policy and Procedure and the timeline for reporting and investigation of allegations of abuse.
- Prohibited staff from working until in-serviced.
- Held an ad hoc Quality Assurance meeting to review the plan for removal of the Immediate Jeopardy tag.
- Reviewed the policy with no changes.
Failure to Prevent, Report, and Investigate Verbal Abuse of a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s right to be free from abuse and to protect residents from verbal and mental abuse after an allegation was reported. The facility’s own Abuse Policy defined verbal abuse as the use of disparaging and derogatory language and mental abuse as including humiliation, harassment, and threats of punishment or deprivation, and stated that residents were not to be subjected to abuse by anyone, including staff. Despite this, on the evening of 2/10/26, a resident was subjected to disparaging, demeaning, and derogatory language and deliberate actions intended to intimidate the resident by two CNAs during the provision of care. The resident repeatedly requested assistance and complained of pain, but was mocked, scorned, criticized, and insulted by the CNAs, and her complaints of discomfort, pain, and rough treatment were dismissed. The resident involved had been admitted with diagnoses including encounter for other orthopedic aftercare, fracture of the right femur, and dementia, and had a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The resident required a wheelchair for mobility, partial/moderate assistance for dressing and bed mobility, and one-person assistance for stand-pivot transfers with weight bearing as tolerated and caution due to right hip surgery. The resident’s care plan directed staff to provide assistance as needed for ADLs and transfers, and to anticipate and meet needs based on physical or non-verbal indicators of discomfort or distress. On the evening of 2/10/26, CNA #1 was assigned to the resident’s room and, along with CNA #2, provided care during which the abusive interaction occurred. Two other CNAs were present for part of the interaction, heard CNA #1 telling the resident to get up and that she was not handicapped, saw the resident attempt unsuccessfully to stand, and then left the room without reporting what they had heard. On 2/14/26 at approximately 8:40 AM, the resident’s representative reported an allegation of verbal abuse, supported by an audio recording, to the RN Supervisor. RN #1 and RN #2 listened to the recording with the resident and representative and described it as demeaning, degrading, cruel, and shocking, with the resident heard crying, screaming, complaining of pain and rough treatment, and begging the CNAs to stop while the CNAs mocked and laughed at her. RN #2 notified the DON at approximately 8:50 AM, and the DON notified the Administrator at approximately 9:01 AM. However, no interviews were conducted on 2/14/26, and the DON and Administrator did not come to the facility that day. The facility did not report the allegation to the State Agency within the required two-hour timeframe and did not begin a formal investigation until 2/15/26. During the investigation, the Lead CNA Supervisor and DON listened to the recording, recognized the voices of the resident and the two CNAs, and confirmed that the language and tone used were abusive, derogatory, demeaning, and malicious. CNA #2 later confirmed being present in the room throughout the incident and acknowledged being "guilty by association" for not reporting the abuse. The facility’s failure to immediately report, protect, and investigate after the allegation was made led to a finding of Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care under F600. The State Agency determined that Immediate Jeopardy began on 2/14/26 when the facility failed to protect residents from abuse, failed to report the alleged abuse timely, failed to promptly investigate the allegations, and administration failed to implement and enforce the facility’s abuse policies. The facility’s failure to report, protect, and investigate abuse placed all residents at risk in a situation likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. The abusive conduct toward the resident, combined with the delayed response and lack of immediate protective measures after the allegation was reported, constituted the core deficiency identified by surveyors.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was moved from Unit A to Unit B at the request of the family after discussion with Registered Nurse #1.
- The Director of Nursing interviewed Resident #1 regarding the allegations of alleged abuse, and she denied any such happenings.
- The Director of Nursing assessed the resident for any physical or emotional effects.
- Psychosocial support was initiated and conducted for 72 hours by the Social Services Director.
- Resident #1 was referred to the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner for evaluation.
- The Director of Nursing, Staff Development, and Lead CNA provided education with all staff regarding the Facility Abuse Policy and Procedures.
- A Corporate Nurse conducted an in-service with the Director of Nursing and Facility Administrator regarding abuse allegations, investigations, and proper reporting timeliness.
- CNA #1 was contacted multiple times to be terminated but did not return phone calls.
- CNA #2 was terminated upon review of the recording due to her voice being recognized using aggressive language.
- All staff will be educated on Abuse Policy and Procedure as well as the timeline for reporting and investigation of allegations of abuse by the Director of Nursing, Staff Development Nurse, Lead CNA, and RN Supervisor.
- No staff will be allowed to work until in-serviced.
- An AD HOC Quality Assurance meeting was held to review the plan for removal of the Immediate Jeopardy tag.
- The policy was reviewed with no changes.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
