Citations in Iowa
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Iowa.
Statistics for Iowa (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Iowa
An LPN, unfamiliar with residents on a medication cart and faced with two residents sharing the same first name, failed to correctly identify a resident and administered a full set of another resident’s medications in addition to the resident’s own ordered morning medications, including PRN oxycodone. The resident, who had severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including hypertension and Alzheimer’s disease, subsequently experienced declining BP, reported not feeling well, and became increasingly fatigued. The facility’s policy required resident identification before medication administration, and the LPN acknowledged not knowing the residents and finding the EHR photos too small, despite their availability. Hospital records later documented hypotension, treatment with IV fluids, and a drug overdose after accidental ingestion of another resident’s medications plus the resident’s own, with persistent sinus bradycardia requiring admission for further hemodynamic monitoring.
A cognitively impaired, wandering resident with Alzheimer’s disease and behavioral symptoms was care planned as an elopement risk but was able to leave the memory care unit by holding an emergency exit door bar for 15 seconds and exiting into a stairwell and then to the employee parking lot. The door alarm functioned, but staff in the noisy dining room did not hear it while they were feeding multiple residents, including several needing extensive assistance, and only realized the resident was missing when another staff member encountered him outside and brought him back. In addition, several residents who required staff assistance for transfers and toileting experienced prolonged call light response times well beyond the facility’s 15‑minute expectation, including one who reported waiting up to an hour during meals and having an in‑room accident, another observed waiting about 25 minutes while calling out for help, and a third waiting about 17 minutes before a CNA responded.
A cognitively intact resident reported that a CNA ripped her incontinence brief during care and then refused to change it, despite the resident stating she could not wear it due to the tear. The resident became upset and informed housekeeping staff, who then asked an LPN to assist. On assessment, the LPN observed a large rip extending around the back of the brief, changed the brief, and provided peri care at the resident’s request. The resident stated the ripped brief was uncomfortable and that she did not feel treated with dignity or respect. In interviews, the CNA acknowledged telling the resident the torn brief would still work and did not change it, while the DON confirmed the CNA had refused the resident’s request for a brief change, in conflict with the facility’s dignity policy.
A deficiency was identified when a CNA did not follow manufacturer instructions for a mechanical stand while transferring a resident with severe cognitive impairment, a history of hip fracture, dementia, and muscle wasting who required substantial assistance for transfers. The resident’s care plan called for use of a mechanical stand, but during observed toileting and return-to-chair transfers, the CNA repeatedly locked and unlocked only one wheel of the device and did not keep the brakes unlocked during the actual transfer, contrary to the operator’s instructions that brakes be locked only when raising and lowering the resident during ambulation. In an interview, the DON confirmed staff were expected to follow these operator instructions and keep the wheels unlocked during transfers.
A resident with dementia, behavioral symptoms, and multiple psychotropic and cardiovascular medications was discharged to another nursing facility without a thorough or accurate discharge summary. The care plan contained a discharge planning focus but was never updated to reflect the actual discharge, and the EHR lacked documentation of discharge planning, the reason for discharge, or a recapitulation of stay, despite a family member stating they initiated the discharge due to dissatisfaction with care. The discharge instructions contained multiple medication discrepancies and omissions, including missing drugs, incorrect dosages, and absent administration frequencies, and several PRN constipation medications were not listed, contrary to the facility’s written discharge planning policy.
A resident was admitted from a hospital without a completed Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) in the medical record, as required prior to admission. The PASRR was only completed several days later by the Hospital Liaison/Admissions Coordinator after a call alerted staff that it was missing. Both the admissions coordinator and the Administrator acknowledged that the facility relies on the hospital to provide the PASRR and that, in this case, it was missed and not done before the resident’s admission.
Significant Medication Error From Misidentification During Med Pass
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors and to follow the 5 rights of medication administration, resulting in one resident receiving another resident’s medications in addition to their own. The resident had diagnoses including hypertension, Alzheimer’s disease, and toxic encephalopathy, with a BIMS score of 3 indicating severe cognitive impairment. On the morning in question, review of the MAR showed the resident received their ordered medications, which included aspirin, calcium carbonate, vitamin C, vitamin D, fluoxetine 20 mg, furosemide 40 mg, galantamine, a lidocaine patch, memantine, acetaminophen, and PRN oxycodone around 8:00 a.m. According to the incident report and nursing progress notes, the LPN (Staff A) administered another resident’s full set of morning medications to this resident while the resident was in the dining room. These additional medications included metoprolol 60 mg, Lyrica 75 mg, oxycodone 7.5/325 mg, furosemide 40 mg, celecoxib 100 mg, Prozac 60 mg, hydroxyzine 10 mg, cetirizine 10 mg, Neuriva, Protonix 20 mg, potassium 99 mg, a multivitamin, and vitamin D3. These medications were given in addition to the resident’s own morning medications and PRN oxycodone. The nurse’s notes documented that the resident’s blood pressure readings declined from 100/50 to 85/48 and then to 73/48, and the resident complained of not feeling well and was increasingly fatigued. Staff A reported during interview that the resident had been screaming and yelling and that she did not realize there were two residents with the same first name in the back hallway. She stated it was her first time working in that hallway after training and that, although resident pictures were available in the EHR to assist with identification, she felt they were small and she did not know the residents. The facility’s medication management policy required staff to identify the resident before administering medications. Staff A’s employee record showed a prior medication occurrence in which she administered the wrong medications (including furosemide and potassium) to a resident, and she had documented previously that she was not familiar with residents when working on that cart. The resident was ultimately sent to the ER, where records documented hypotension on admission, treatment with IV fluids, and a chief complaint of drug overdose after accidental ingestion of another resident’s multiple medications in addition to the resident’s own medications, with continued sinus bradycardia requiring admission for further hemodynamic monitoring.
Elopement of Wandering Resident and Delayed Call Light Responses
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent an elopement for a cognitively impaired, wandering resident and failure to respond to resident call lights within the facility’s stated 15‑minute expectation. One resident with Alzheimer’s disease, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder had a care plan identifying risk for elopement due to wandering and documented behaviors of agitation, aggression, restlessness, and continuous pacing/wandering within the unit. This resident ambulated independently with a walker and had a BIMS score indicating impaired cognition. On the evening of the incident, the resident finished supper in the memory care dining room and then repeatedly walked the hallway with his walker, eventually approaching an emergency exit door at the far end of the hall, away from the dining room. Video and documentation show that the resident stood at the emergency exit door, held the door bar down for the required 15 seconds to release the egress, and then exited through the door into a stairwell and out to the employee parking lot. The door alarm and 15‑second egress functioned, but staff in the dining room did not hear the alarm due to noise from residents, staff conversation, and the television. At the time, two CNAs and one LPN were in the dining room feeding multiple residents, including several who required assistance, and staff reported that the resident was very quick, wandered constantly, and was difficult to keep seated. Staff interviews revealed that one CNA noticed the resident was no longer in the dining room around the same time another staff member reported they were looking for him, and only then did staff recognize the back exit door alarm sounding. A nurse arriving for her shift in the parking lot encountered the resident outside with his walker and escorted him back inside, after which he was assessed and found in stable condition. The deficiency also includes failure to respond to resident call lights within the professional standard of 15 minutes for multiple residents. One resident with intact cognition but dependent or substantial/maximal assistance needs for toileting reported that during meal hours it could take up to an hour for staff to answer the call light, resulting in an in‑room accident. Another resident, alert and oriented but occasionally forgetful and requiring two‑person assistance for transfers, was observed with the call light on for approximately 25 minutes in the morning while repeatedly yelling for help; staff walked past in the hallway without answering the light until a staff member finally entered the room. A third resident, requiring one‑person assistance for transfers, was observed with the call light on for about 17 minutes before a CNA entered to assist. The DON stated that the facility’s expectation is that call lights be answered within 15 minutes, and the facility’s policy directs all staff from all departments to respond to call lights and either assist or obtain appropriate help, but the observed response times exceeded this standard for the residents involved. Staff interviews further described the conditions contributing to these call light delays and supervision gaps. Staff on the memory care unit reported that typical evening staffing consisted of one nurse, one CMA, and two CNAs, and that while this was manageable when routines went smoothly, it became inadequate when residents had behaviors, were sundowning, or when events such as falls or changes in condition occurred. A CMA stated that at least three CNAs were needed on the memory care unit due to multiple residents requiring two‑person assistance, noting that when two CNAs were in a room providing care, they could not monitor the rest of the unit. Staff also reported that the back exit door alarm was faint and difficult to hear from the dining room, and some staff were not fully aware of the configuration of the back stairwell and exit leading to the parking lot. These conditions, combined with high resident care needs and noise levels during meals, contributed to the resident’s elopement and to prolonged call light response times for several residents. Maintenance and administrative staff confirmed that the south/back exit door from the unit led to another unalarmed door and then to the outside employee parking lot, and that the facility did not receive system reports when door alarms were activated. The Administrator was unable to verify when a door alarm went off or when an exit door was breached. The facility’s Wandering Resident policy stated that residents at risk for elopement should receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents and that staff must be vigilant in responding to alarms in a timely manner, and the call light policy required prompt response by all staff. Despite these policies, the documented events show that the resident at risk for elopement was able to leave the secured unit and reach the parking lot without timely staff detection, and that multiple residents experienced call light response times significantly longer than the facility’s stated 15‑minute standard.
Failure to Honor Resident Request for Brief Change and Maintain Dignity
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to resident dignity and respect when a cognitively intact resident’s request for a brief change was not honored. The resident, with a BIMS score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment, reported being upset because a CNA (Staff N) ripped her brief during care and then refused to change it. The resident self-propelled down the hallway stating she was upset about the ripped brief and that staff would not change it. A housekeeping staff member (Staff M) observed the resident’s distress, was told that the CNA had refused to change the brief despite a large rip, and then asked an LPN (Staff O) to assist with changing it. During the subsequent brief change, Staff O performed hand hygiene, used gloves, removed the resident’s pants and brief, and provided peri care at the resident’s request before applying a new brief and redressing the resident. Observation of the removed brief revealed a large rip on the left side extending past the middle of the resident’s back. The resident stated the brief with the hole was uncomfortable and that she felt staff did not provide her with dignity and respect when her request for a new brief was not honored. Staff O confirmed that the brief had a very large hole and that the resident was very upset, reporting she did not feel treated with dignity or respect and that the ripped brief was uncomfortable. In an interview, Staff N acknowledged caring for the resident that day, stated the resident had been upset and had “behaviors,” and reported that when the resident said she wanted her brief changed because it was ripped, Staff N told her the brief would still work and that urine would not get everywhere, characterizing the tear as “just a little tear.” Staff N stated the resident did not explicitly ask her to change the brief. The DON later stated that Staff N had ripped the brief, the resident had requested a brief change, Staff N said she would not change it, and acknowledged that a lack of dignity occurred when Staff N refused to change the resident’s brief, contrary to the facility’s dignity policy.
Improper Use of Mechanical Stand Brakes During Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to accident prevention when staff failed to properly use a mechanical stand’s brakes during transfers for one resident. The resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 indicating severe cognitive impairment, required substantial assistance for transfers, and had diagnoses including hip fracture, dementia, and muscle wasting. The care plan documented initiation of a mechanical stand for transfers. During observation, a CNA applied a sling, locked the right wheel of the mechanical stand, lifted the resident from a chair, then unlocked the right wheel and positioned the resident over the toilet. The CNA then lowered the resident onto the toilet and locked the right wheel. After the resident finished, the CNA lifted the resident from the toilet, unlocked the right wheel, positioned the resident over the chair, locked the right wheel, and lowered the resident, thereby failing to keep the mechanical stand brakes unlocked during the transfer as required by the operator’s instructions, which specified that brakes should only be locked when raising and lowering the resident during ambulation. In an interview, the DON stated that staff were expected to follow the operator’s instructions and keep the wheels unlocked during transfers, confirming that the observed practice did not align with the manufacturer’s guidance for safe operation of the mechanical stand.
Failure to Complete Accurate and Thorough Discharge Summary and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to complete a thorough and accurate discharge summary and related discharge documentation for one resident who was discharged from the facility. The resident was admitted in early March with moderate cognitive impairment, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 08, and documented delusions and behavioral symptoms. Diagnoses included dementia with agitation, anxiety disorder, and depression. Although the care plan contained a discharge planning focus initiated shortly after admission, it did not contain any updates or documentation related to the resident’s actual discharge later that month. The electronic health record (EHR) contained a communication note indicating that transport to another nursing facility was arranged and a health status note stating that the resident was discharged, with physician orders and a face sheet faxed and a report called to the receiving facility. The resident’s EHR did not contain documentation of the discharge planning process, the reason for the discharge, or a recapitulation of the resident’s stay. A family member reported that the family initiated the discharge due to dissatisfaction with care, but there was no documentation in the EHR reflecting that the family initiated the discharge. The Long Term Care Ombudsman reported that no one contacted her during the resident’s stay, although her office did receive notice of the transfer. The facility’s own discharge planning policy required that discharge planning begin on admission, be routinely updated in the comprehensive care plan, and that the evaluation of discharge needs and the final discharge plan be completely documented in the clinical record and discussed with the resident or representative. Review of the resident’s discharge instructions and March medication administration record revealed multiple discrepancies and omissions in the discharge summary. One medication (Amlodipine 10 mg) was listed without any frequency or time of administration. Several medications that the resident was receiving, including Donepezil 10 mg, Lisinopril 5 mg, and Buspirone 10 mg twice daily, were not included on the discharge summary. Other medications were inaccurately documented, such as Memantine, which was ordered as 20 mg once daily but listed as 10 mg twice daily, and Seroquel, ordered as 50 mg twice daily but listed as once daily. Several PRN constipation medications were also omitted. The Regional Nurse Consultant confirmed that the facility’s EHR contained a discharge assessment tool that was not completed for this resident and acknowledged the multiple medication discrepancies on the discharge summary form.
Failure to Complete PASRR Evaluation Prior to Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a required Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) evaluation for a resident with an admission date of 4/22/26. The resident’s electronic health record documented admission from a hospital on 4/22/26, but review of the record showed no PASRR completed at the time of admission. A PASRR form for this resident was later obtained and showed it was completed on 4/27/26 by the Hospital Liaison/Admissions Coordinator, several days after the resident had already been admitted. During interview, the Hospital Liaison/Admissions Coordinator stated that the hospital usually completes the PASRR, acknowledged receiving a call the previous night that the PASRR was not in the chart, and admitted she had missed completing it prior to admission even though it should have been done. The Administrator similarly reported that the facility relies on receiving the PASRR from the hospital admission records and that, in this case, the PASRR was missed and not completed prior to the resident’s admission. This resulted in a deficiency for failure to ensure a PASRR evaluation was completed prior to admission for 1 of 3 reviewed residents, in accordance with PASRR requirements.
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 Iowa — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Iowa
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 June 24, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Some of the Latest Corrective Actions taken by Facilities in Iowa
- Staff education was provided to ensure all staff and departments are aware that oxygen equipment cannot be on residents or in the designated smoking area while residents smoke. (J - F0689 - IA)
- Facility educated Resident #32 and other residents who smoke that oxygen equipment cannot be with them while smoking. (J - F0689 - IA)
- Facility posted signs near the exit to the designated smoking area and the front entrance for visitors, stating that oxygen use is not allowed while smoking. (J - F0689 - IA)
- Facility planned audits for compliance to ensure oxygen equipment is not present in the designated smoking area while residents are smoking, with any concerns to be reported to the Administrator immediately and addressed in the facility Quality Assurance meeting. (J - F0689 - IA)
Safety Lapses in Smoking Area and Resident Transport
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the safety of residents in a designated smoking area, particularly concerning Resident #32, who was observed smoking with a portable oxygen tank attached to his wheelchair. Despite the facility's policy prohibiting oxygen use in smoking areas, Resident #32, who had been on oxygen since November 2024, was seen smoking with the oxygen tank present, posing a significant safety risk. The resident, diagnosed with paraplegia, COPD, and asthma, was non-compliant with continuous oxygen orders and required supervision while smoking. However, the supervision provided by housekeeping staff was inadequate, as they did not remove the oxygen tank before the resident smoked. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the safe transport of Resident #25, who was moved from the dining room to his room in a wheelchair without foot pedals. Resident #25, diagnosed with dementia and severe cognitive impairment, required extensive assistance for mobility. The lack of foot pedals during transport posed a risk to the resident's safety, as confirmed by the Director of Nursing, who stated that the expectation was for staff to use wheelchair pedals when transporting residents. These deficiencies highlight the facility's failure to adhere to safety protocols and provide adequate supervision, resulting in Immediate Jeopardy to the health and safety of the residents. The facility's policies and procedures were not effectively implemented, leading to unsafe conditions for residents who required special care and supervision.
Removal Plan
- Staff education provided to ensure all staff and all departments are aware oxygen equipment cannot be on residents or in the designated smoking area while residents smoked. All staff educated prior to the start of their next shift.
- Facility educated Resident #32, and the other residents who smoke, that oxygen equipment cannot be with them while smoking.
- Facility posted a sign near the exit to the designated smoking area stating that oxygen use is not allowed in the designated area.
- Facility posted a sign near the front entrance for visitors stating that oxygen use is not allowed while smoking.
- Facility planned to audit for compliance to ensure oxygen equipment not present in the designated smoking area while residents are smoking and any concerns to be reported to the Administrator immediately and addressed in facility Quality Assurance meeting.
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.
