Citations in Idaho
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Idaho.
Statistics for Idaho (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Idaho
A resident admitted with a diagnosis of PTSD and severe cognitive deficits had an admission MDS and an Interim History and Physical documenting PTSD, but the Idaho PASRR Level I form incorrectly indicated no major mental illness, even though PTSD is listed on the form as a major mental illness. The SSD stated he reviewed hospital records and the chart but missed the PTSD diagnosis and did not mark it on the PASARR, contrary to facility expectations and policy requiring accurate pre-admission screening for serious mental disorders and appropriate follow-up evaluation when a Level I screen is positive.
A resident with COPD and dementia, receiving scheduled nebulizer treatments, was found on multiple occasions to have a nebulizer mask stored on top of the machine rather than in a sanitary manner. A CNA and a nurse aide in training confirmed the mask’s placement, and an LPN reported that masks were routinely cleaned, dried, and then stored on top of the machine. The DON later acknowledged that masks should be washed, dried, and placed on a clean surface, and facility policy required oxygen and respiratory supplies to be stored in a plastic bag when not in use.
Staff failed to consistently implement and follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during wound care for two residents. For a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter and an EBP order, an RN and a CNA removed their gowns after catheter care and performed a heel and toe dressing change wearing only gloves, despite a door sign requiring gown and gloves for wound care and other high-contact care. For another resident with multiple open leg wounds and active wound care orders, an RN and a nurse aide performed dressing changes with gloves only, without gowns, and there was no EBP signage or order in place. Interviews with nursing staff, the IP, and the DON revealed inconsistent understanding and application of the facility’s EBP policy, which requires gown and gloves for high-contact care activities, including wound care and device care, for residents with chronic wounds or indwelling devices.
A resident with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and a history of breast cancer had previously received PPSV23 and PCV13 at the appropriate age, but review of the EMR and vaccine consent form showed the pneumococcal section was marked as "not needed" and no additional pneumococcal vaccine was offered. The ADON/IP acknowledged that, according to CDC guidelines, the resident was not fully vaccinated and should have been offered PCV20, and the DON stated her expectation that vaccine status be reviewed on admission and tracked to ensure residents are fully vaccinated.
Two residents who experienced emergent hospital transfers for issues including abnormal critical labs, uncontrollable pain, and SOB with low O2 saturation were not provided with required written bed-hold policies and transfer notices. One resident had severely impaired cognition, and another was cognitively intact and later died at the hospital. Progress notes documented the transfers and that contacts or family were notified, but there was no documentation that written notices addressing bed-hold, appeal rights, or ombudsman information were given, despite facility policies requiring such written information at admission and again at or shortly after transfer. The Administrator confirmed that bed-hold notices were not sent for these residents.
Two residents who required staff assistance with ADLs did not receive showers and hair washing as care-planned and expected. One resident with dementia and cervical spine conditions was observed with flaky skin and greasy hair, and the family’s shower calendar showed only four showers in a month despite an expectation of three per week, with no refusals documented in the record or care plan. Another cognitively intact resident with quadriplegia and spinal stenosis reported rarely receiving scheduled showers, and was observed with long, greasy hair, again with no refusals documented. The DON and Administrator acknowledged CNAs believed they could not provide baths without a dedicated bath team and historically had no room assignments, despite facility policy requiring provision and documentation of ADL care and refusals.
Failure to Update PASARR for Resident With PTSD Diagnosis
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a PASARR Level I screen was accurately completed and updated to reflect a major mental illness diagnosis for one resident. The resident’s admission MDS, with an ARD of 03/30/26, showed a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and a BIMS score of 3/15, indicating severe cognitive deficits. An Interim History and Physical dated 03/25/26 also documented PTSD as a diagnosis. However, the Idaho PASRR Level I form dated 03/19/26 indicated “No” under the section asking whether the individual had any major mental illnesses, despite PTSD being listed on the form as a qualifying major mental illness and despite the resident having that diagnosis. The Social Services Director reported that he reviewed hospital records and the resident’s chart to ensure that diagnoses on the admitting PASARR matched the resident’s conditions, and he confirmed the resident was admitted with PTSD. He acknowledged that he missed the PTSD diagnosis and that it should have been marked on the PASARR. During an interview, the DON and Administrator stated the expectation that all PASARRs be correct and that, if not correct at admission, a new PASARR should be submitted. The facility’s PASRR policy specified that potential admissions are to be screened for serious mental disorders or intellectual disabilities prior to admission and that a positive Level I screen requires a Level II evaluation by the state-designated authority prior to admission unless otherwise authorized.
Improper Storage of Nebulizer Mask and Respiratory Supplies
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the sanitary storage of respiratory equipment for one resident receiving respiratory care. The resident was admitted with COPD and unspecified dementia and had care plan focuses for terminal prognosis due to COPD and shortness of breath, with interventions including administration of inhalers and nebulized medications as ordered. Physician orders included scheduled ipratropium-albuterol nebulizer treatments twice daily for COPD. During multiple observations in the resident’s shared room, the nebulizer mask was seen lying on top of the nebulizer machine rather than being stored in a sanitary manner. Staff interviews confirmed the observed storage practice. A CNA and a nurse aide in training each verified that the nebulizer mask was lying on top of the machine at the times of observation. An LPN stated that masks were cleaned after use, dried, and then stored on top of the machine, and acknowledged this could be an infection control issue. During a later observation, the LPN again confirmed the mask was on top of the machine. In an interview, the DON, with the Administrator present, stated the mask should be washed, dried, and placed on a clean surface and acknowledged it could be an infection control issue, and the facility’s written policy specified that oxygen and respiratory supplies were to be stored in a plastic bag when not in use.
Failure to Implement and Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions During Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s infection prevention and control program related to improper use and implementation of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during wound care. One resident with an indwelling urinary catheter had an active order and care plan for EBP, and a door sign specifying that gown and gloves were required for high-contact resident care activities, including wound care and device care. During an observation, an RN and a CNA entered this resident’s room, performed hand hygiene, donned gown and gloves, and completed catheter care in accordance with the posted EBP instructions. However, after completing catheter care, the RN instructed the CNA that they could remove their gowns because EBP was “only for the catheter,” and both staff removed their gowns and gloves, performed hand hygiene, and then donned only clean gloves to perform a dressing change on the resident’s right heel and pinky toe, despite the door sign indicating gown and gloves were required for wound care. A second resident had multiple open wounds on both lower extremities that required cleansing, application of collagen with wound gel and alginate, and coverage with border gauze dressings. Progress notes documented that these wounds originated as skin tears and were slowly healing, and active wound care orders were in place. During an observation of wound care for this resident, an RN and a nurse aide performed hand hygiene and donned gloves but did not wear gowns. There was no EBP sign or PPE set up outside the room, and there was no order for EBP in the electronic medical record, even though the resident had open wounds requiring dressing changes. In interviews, the RN stated that EBP was required for chronic wounds such as pressure, venous, and arterial wounds, and that EBP for the first resident applied only to catheter care. The CNA reported that she relied on the door sign and believed she only needed to gown for catheter care, brief care, or toileting, and not for transferring if she was not in contact with the catheter. The Infection Preventionist explained that EBP was used for chronic wounds and indwelling devices and stated that staff would only need to gown when providing care to the Foley catheter, while the DON stated that EBP was for residents with devices or dressing changes to prevent MDROs and that staff should wear gown and gloves even when not providing direct catheter care. The facility’s written EBP policy specified that EBP applies to residents with chronic wounds and/or indwelling medical devices and that PPE for EBP is necessary when performing high-contact care activities, including wound care and medical device care, which was not consistently followed in the observed wound care encounters.
Failure to Offer Pneumococcal Vaccination per CDC Guidelines
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s implementation of its pneumococcal vaccination policy for one resident. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and a history of malignant neoplasm of the breast, and was over the age threshold referenced in CDC guidance. Record review showed the resident had previously received PPSV23 on 06/07/04 and PCV13 (Prevnar 13) on 11/04/14, both administered when the resident was older than the specified age. The resident’s Informed Consent Form for vaccines, dated 09/17/25, had the pneumococcal section marked as “not needed,” despite documentation of prior PPSV23 and PCV13 doses. During interviews, the ADON/Infection Preventionist stated she tracks resident vaccine records on a spreadsheet and confirmed that, based on CDC recommendations, the resident was not fully vaccinated and should have been offered PCV20. She also stated she did not know why “not needed” was written on the consent form. The DON stated her expectation was that residents’ vaccine status would be reviewed on admission, tracked when due, and that the IP nurse would review pneumonia vaccine status to determine if residents were fully vaccinated and offer the vaccine if not. Review of the facility’s pneumococcal vaccination policy and the CDC Adult Immunization Schedule showed that, for adults who previously received both PCV13 and PPSV23 with PPSV23 given at age 65 or older, one dose of PCV20 or PCV21 should be considered at least five years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose, indicating the resident met criteria to be offered an additional pneumococcal vaccine dose.
Failure to Provide Required Bed-Hold and Transfer Notices for Hospital Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide required written bed-hold policies and transfer notices to two residents and/or their resident representatives when the residents were emergently transferred to the hospital. One resident had severely impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 3/15 and was transferred to the hospital due to abnormal critical lab results, then later returned to the facility. Documentation showed that the facility called the contact on file and a POA returned the call, but there was no documentation that a written transfer notice or bed-hold information was provided. The facility’s own policy required that written transfer/discharge notices include the reason for transfer, effective date, receiving location, a statement of the right to appeal, and contact information for the state LTC ombudsman and protection and advocacy agencies, as well as sending a copy to the ombudsman. A second resident, who had intact cognition with a BIMS score of 15/15, was transferred to the hospital on one occasion for uncontrollable pain and returned to the facility, and on another occasion for SOB, tremors in both arms, and oxygen saturation below 88%, after which the resident expired at the hospital. Progress notes documented the transfers and that the family was notified, but there was no documentation that written transfer notices or bed-hold policies were provided at either transfer. The facility’s bed-hold policy required that all residents or their representatives, regardless of payor source, receive written information about facility and state bed-hold policies twice: in advance of transfer (e.g., in the admission packet) and again at the time of transfer, or within 24 hours for emergency transfers. During an interview, the Administrator confirmed that bed-hold notices had not been sent for these two residents.
Failure to Provide Required Showering and Hygiene Assistance for Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide required assistance with showering and personal hygiene for two residents who were dependent on staff for ADLs. One resident was observed with flaky skin and greasy hair, and the resident’s family member reported the resident was supposed to receive three showers or baths per week but was “lucky to get one.” The family maintained a calendar showing the resident received only four showers in the month of April. The resident’s admission record showed diagnoses including traumatic spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine, unspecified dementia, and cervical spinal stenosis. The quarterly MDS documented moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 10 and a need for substantial/maximal assistance with showering/bathing, with no documentation of care refusals. The resident’s care plan identified an ADL self-care performance deficit related to impaired balance, limited mobility, limited ROM, and neck pain, and contained no documentation of rejection of care or a pattern of negative responses. A second resident was observed with waist-length hair that appeared greasy at the crown and in need of washing. This resident stated she was supposed to receive three showers or baths per week but was “lucky” to get one, and reported staff told her they were short-staffed and that there was no bath team. Her admission record listed diagnoses including quadriplegia at C5–C7, bipolar disorder, and spinal stenosis. Her quarterly MDS documented that she was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and required partial/moderate assistance for showering/bathing, with no documentation of refusing care. Her care plan identified an ADL self-care performance deficit related to incomplete quadriplegia and did not document any concerns with rejection of care for ADLs, including showering. The DON and Administrator acknowledged that CNAs believed they were short-staffed without a bath team and were unaccustomed to providing baths and grooming when the bath team was unavailable, and that previously there had been no CNA room assignments, resulting in a lack of accountability for residents’ care. The facility’s ADL policy required that residents unable to perform ADLs independently receive services necessary to maintain grooming and personal hygiene and that refusals be documented in the clinical record.
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 Idaho — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Idaho
Data through Apr 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period May 2025 – Apr 2026 against the prior period May 2024 – Apr 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): May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 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: May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 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 May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 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. May 2025 – Apr 2026 vs the prior period May 2024 – Apr 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 Idaho
The facilities took the following corrective actions in response to the cited deficiencies:
- All residents were made safe by immediately removing the accused staff member from the building and placing them on administrative leave. Staff were re-educated on abuse policies and reporting requirements. Residents were interviewed to ensure they felt safe and knew how to report abuse allegations. (J - F0600 - ID)
- PT #1 was suspended during the investigation and later terminated. The State Licensure Board was notified of the abuse allegations. Staff were educated on abuse/neglect and identifying burnout, and counseling services were offered. NAIT #1 was suspended during the investigation, and nursing staff were retrained on abuse, neglect, and managing burnout. (G - F0600 - ID)
- The nurse assessed both residents for harm and injury. Administrators were notified, families were informed, and the state agency was alerted. Staff were interviewed, and care plans for both residents were updated. Social services interviewed other residents. Staff education was provided to redirect Resident #42, and frequent checks were initiated. Resident #42 was moved to a new room. (G - F0600 - ID)
- All facility drivers were in-serviced on proper procedures for securing passengers in wheelchairs. New seat belts were purchased, and maintenance added a monthly check of seatbelts. Training with return demonstrations was provided to drivers, and a two-person wheelchair securement check was implemented before each transport. (G - F0600 - ID)
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from verbal and physical abuse by staff, as evidenced by incidents involving two residents. Resident #37 reported that an LPN on the night shift was confrontational, yelled at her, and made her feel unsafe. Despite the resident's immediate report to the Administrator and the presence of another LPN who witnessed the distress, the accused LPN continued to work in the facility without immediate removal, contrary to the facility's abuse policy. The DON and Administrator initially denied any recent allegations of verbal abuse, but later confirmed the incident occurred and was investigated as unsubstantiated, although the accused LPN was not removed from duty until much later. Resident #3 experienced multiple instances of physical and verbal abuse by CNAs, including ear flicking, hair pulling, and mocking, which were reported by other staff members. The abuse caused Resident #3 to become agitated and use profanity, which further escalated the situation. Despite multiple witness reports and a substantiated abuse investigation, the involved CNAs and an LPN who failed to intervene were only terminated after the incidents were reported to Human Resources. The facility's failure to immediately remove the accused staff members and protect the residents from further abuse placed the health and safety of all residents at risk. The incidents were not promptly addressed according to the facility's abuse policy, leading to a determination of immediate jeopardy for the residents' well-being.
Removal Plan
- All residents were safe by having the accused leave the building immediately and placed on administrative leave.
- The facility will re-educate all staff members to Valley Vista Care Corporation Abuse Policy and Procedures and the Federal and State requirements for reporting prior to their next shift following Train the Trainer in-service.
- The CEO, Director of Corporate Compliance, and/or Director of Administrative Services will be alerted of any allegation(s) of abuse immediately to ensure Federal and State law has been followed.
- Residents were interviewed to ensure they felt safe in the building, if they were abused (verbal, physical, and/or neglect), and if they knew who they could report abuse allegations.
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse and Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect, as evidenced by incidents involving two residents. One resident, who was deaf and required a whiteboard for communication, reported that a physical therapist (PT) threw a soiled bed pan and urinal at her, causing urine to splash onto her arm. The incident occurred when the resident declined to attend a therapy session due to preparing to move rooms. The PT did not use the whiteboard to communicate and was reportedly yelling at the resident. A nursing assistant in training (NAIT) present during the incident confirmed the PT's actions and noted the resident was left with feces and urine on her. Another resident, who was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, experienced neglect when she used her call light multiple times to request help with incontinence care. A NAIT responded to her call light but failed to return with assistance, leaving the resident without the necessary care. Despite being informed by a registered nurse (RN) to assist the resident, the NAIT falsely claimed to have provided the care and informed another CNA that the resident had been helped. The resident reported the neglect, and the facility's investigation confirmed the NAIT's failure to provide care. These incidents highlight the facility's failure to ensure residents' rights to be free from abuse and neglect, placing all residents at risk of harm. The facility's investigations substantiated the allegations of abuse and neglect, confirming the inappropriate actions of the PT and the neglectful behavior of the NAIT.
Removal Plan
- PT #1 was suspended during the investigation, then terminated from employment at the facility.
- The State Licensure Board was notified of the abuse allegations and investigative findings related to PT #1's involvement in the incident.
- All staff were educated on abuse/neglect and identifying burnout.
- Staff were offered counseling services for burnout.
- NAIT #1 was suspended immediately during the investigation.
- The facility provided retraining to all nursing staff regarding abuse, neglect, and how to manage burnout.
Failure to Protect Resident from Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from sexual abuse, as evidenced by an incident involving two residents. Resident #63, who was severely cognitively impaired, was inappropriately touched by Resident #42, who was moderately cognitively impaired. The incident occurred while both residents were near the nurses' station, and staff members initially did not notice the inappropriate behavior. When a staff member observed Resident #42 massaging Resident #63's breasts, the residents were separated, and the nurse was alerted. Despite the inappropriate contact, Resident #63 did not show signs of distress or injury, and both residents were assessed as unable to make decisions due to their cognitive impairments. A second incident occurred when Resident #42 managed to access the dining room where Resident #63 was seated. Although staff did not witness the event, Resident #63's disheveled blouse and her verbal response suggested possible inappropriate contact. The nurse's assessment again found no physical injury, but Resident #63 confirmed that Resident #42 had touched her breast. The facility's investigation concluded that Resident #42 mistakenly believed Resident #63 was his deceased wife, which led to the inappropriate behavior. The facility's initial response to the first incident included separating the residents and moving Resident #42 to a different floor. However, the second incident highlighted a lapse in staff awareness and communication, as some staff members were unaware of Resident #42's relocation and inadvertently directed him back to the area where Resident #63 was present. This oversight allowed Resident #42 to have further contact with Resident #63, leading to the second reported incident.
Removal Plan
- The nurse assessed both residents for harm and evidence of injury.
- Administrator, Regional Director of Operations notified.
- Families of both residents notified.
- The State Agency Long Term Care Program was notified via the portal.
- Staff members were interviewed.
- Care plans for both residents were reviewed and updated.
- Social Services interviewed other residents and no further concerns were found.
- Staff education was provided to remind and redirect Resident #42 to stay downstairs.
- Frequent checks were initiated for both residents.
- Resident #42 was fully moved downstairs to a new room with all of his belongings set up to his preferences.
Failure to Protect Residents from Neglect During Transport
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents' rights were protected from neglect, resulting in physical harm to two residents. Resident #191, who had spinal stenosis, suffered a significant cut to her lower left leg when the van she was riding in stopped suddenly, causing her to fall forward out of her chair. The seat belt and wheelchair restraints were inspected and found to be functioning properly, indicating that the issue was related to the proper securing of the resident in the van. The incident was not known to the current Administrator as it occurred before her tenure. Resident #192, who had multiple diagnoses including kidney disease and stroke, tipped backwards in his wheelchair while in the van, resulting in an open contusion to his right elbow and a non-displaced fracture of his right femur. The Maintenance Supervisor confirmed that the van's equipment was functioning correctly and attributed the incident to staff not properly securing the wheelchair. The Administrator confirmed that the metal hooks used to fasten the wheelchair were not tight enough, leading to the accident. These findings represent past noncompliance with the regulatory requirement to protect residents from neglect.
Removal Plan
- All facility drivers were in-serviced on the proper procedure for securing and un-securing passengers in wheelchairs.
- New seat belts were purchased, and maintenance added a monthly check of all seatbelts to routine van maintenance.
- All facility drivers were educated on ensuring all van straps were in place and tightened on the wheelchair before transport and the lap seatbelt was in place before the van moved.
- The van was inspected to ensure the seat belts were properly functioning.
- Training with return demonstration was provided to the van drivers.
- A 2-person wheelchair securement check before each resident transport was put into place.
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.
