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)
Latest citations in Mississippi
Ice machine contamination was identified when black substance was observed on the underside of the lid and across the interior ledge of the machine used for all residents. The DM confirmed the buildup should have been removed during routine weekly cleaning and acknowledged the machine had not been cleaned properly.
Infection Preventionist Failed to Track and Trend Recurrent UTIs: The designated IP did not complete infection surveillance, track or trend infection data, or analyze recurring UTI patterns. The IP stated she mainly reviewed antibiotic orders and entered them into the monthly log, was unsure of infection criteria, and was behind on documentation. Logs showed multiple recurrent UTIs, including repeated E. coli cultures, but there was no documentation of analysis, source identification, or staff education related to the recurring infections.
Failure to Implement Antibiotic Stewardship and Track UTI Trends: The facility failed to review UTIs using established infection criteria before antibiotics were given and failed to track, trend, or analyze infection data. The IP only logged antibiotic orders, did not review resident symptoms or determine whether infection criteria were met, and was unsure of the UTI criteria. Infection logs showed numerous recurrent UTIs, including a recurring E. coli pattern, but there was no documentation of analysis, source identification, or staff education on prevention measures such as perineal care, catheter care, or hydration.
A facility failed to implement ADL care plan interventions for two residents related to facial hair grooming. Staff observations found chin hairs on both residents, and interviews confirmed CNAs were expected to assess and shave facial hair during bath or shower time. One resident had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with personal hygiene, while the other had moderate cognitive deficits and required substantial assistance with personal hygiene. The residents’ care plans addressed personal hygiene and ADL support, but staff did not carry out the grooming care as planned.
Two residents who depended on staff for personal hygiene were left with unwanted facial hair despite facility policy stating grooming includes shaving and removal of facial hair. Staff confirmed CNAs were responsible for addressing facial hair during shower time, and both residents were observed with chin hairs; one resident with severe cognitive impairment said she wanted them shaved, and the other said the hair bothered her and made her feel like an odd ball.
Failure to follow infection control precautions involved two residents. One resident on contact isolation for ESBL did not have the required red biohazard barrel in the room, and contaminated PPE was discarded in a regular trash can. Another resident on EBP with a feeding tube had PEG site care performed by an LPN without hand hygiene or the required gown, and the LPN left the room wearing soiled gloves after discarding contaminated gauze on the bedside table.
Ice Machine Not Properly Cleaned
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent possible contamination of ice used for all residents when an ice machine showed a buildup of a black substance on the inside door and interior ledge during a kitchen tour. Facility policy titled Ice Machine Cleaning Policy required kitchen staff to perform weekly cleanings of ice machines, but observation of the ice machine revealed two areas of black substance, each approximately two to three inches in diameter, on the underside of the ice maker lid, along with black substance covering the interior ledge in small circular spots across the entire surface. The Dietary Manager confirmed the black substance was present, stated the underside of the lid and interior ledge should have been cleaned during routine weekly cleaning, and acknowledged that the ice machine had not been cleaned properly.
Infection Preventionist Failed to Track and Trend Recurrent UTIs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the designated Infection Preventionist (IP) implemented and monitored the Infection Prevention and Control Program by not conducting infection surveillance, tracking and trending infections, analyzing infection data, or identifying infection control concerns. The IP job description stated the IP was responsible for development, implementation, oversight, and evaluation of the program, but the IP reported she only reviewed physician orders for antibiotics and entered information into the monthly infection tracking log. She stated she did not review resident symptoms when monitoring infections, was unsure what infection criteria were used to identify infections, and had not completed the May 2026 infection control log, stating she was usually about one month behind in documentation. Record review of the urinary tracking infection logs from February 2026 through April 2026 identified 54 UTI episodes, excluding residents admitted with infections and duplicate entries for the same active infection, with multiple residents experiencing recurrent UTIs. The logs included resident names, organisms identified, antibiotic treatment, treatment completion dates, and follow-up culture results, but there was no documentation that the infections were analyzed for trends, contributing factors, recurring organisms, or opportunities for intervention. The logs also showed a recurring pattern of E. coli in urine cultures, yet there was no evidence of surveillance to identify contributing factors, determine the source, or implement corrective interventions. The IP confirmed she had not tracked or trended infections, evaluated recurring infection patterns, analyzed infection data, or provided staff education regarding perineal care, catheter care, hydration, or other interventions related to the recurring infections.
Failure to Implement Antibiotic Stewardship and Track UTI Trends
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement an effective antibiotic stewardship program and failed to review urinary tract infections using established infection criteria before antibiotic treatment. Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the infection preventionist only reviewed physician antibiotic orders and entered them into the monthly infection tracking log, without reviewing resident symptoms or determining whether infection criteria were met before treatment. The infection preventionist stated she was unsure what criteria were used to determine whether residents met the requirements for a UTI diagnosis and did not track or trend infections, evaluate recurring infection patterns, or analyze antibiotic utilization. Review of the facility's urinary infection tracking logs from February 2026 through April 2026 identified 54 UTI episodes, excluding residents admitted with infections and duplicate entries for the same active infection. Multiple residents had recurrent UTIs, and the logs showed a recurring pattern of E. coli in urine cultures, but there was no documentation that the facility analyzed the infections, identified contributing factors or the source, or implemented interventions to reduce infections. The May 2026 infection control log was not completed as of 6/2/26, and the infection preventionist stated she was usually about one month behind in documentation. She also stated she was unaware a resident was on contact precautions for ESBL in urine and confirmed she had not provided staff education regarding perineal care, catheter care, hydration, or other measures to reduce UTI occurrence.
ADL Care Plans Not Implemented for Facial Hair Grooming
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement comprehensive ADL care plan interventions for two residents related to facial hair. Facility policy titled Total Care Plan Policy stated that problems affecting residents and their care needs should be identified, interventions related to specific problems should be identified, and the plan should be maintained to the extent practicable. Resident #67’s ADL care plan, dated 11/6/25, directed staff to place personal hygiene items within reach and allow the resident to perform care as able, assisting to complete tasks as needed. However, on 6/1/2026, an observation found several long, curly facial hairs on the resident’s chin. An RN later confirmed the chin hairs were present and stated CNAs should be shaving residents as needed during bath/shower time. The MDS Nurse confirmed the care plan included personal hygiene but was not implemented by staff and stated the care plan was intended to guide staff care. Resident #67’s record showed diagnoses including an unspecified fracture of the upper end of the right tibia, weakness, and vascular dementia, and the MDS dated 4/17/2026 showed a BIMS score of 4 and need for supervision or touching assistance with personal hygiene. Resident #59’s care plan identified limitations in functional abilities/self-care deficit related to generalized weakness with a goal that all ADL needs would be met with staff assistance as required. Observations on 06/01/2026 and 06/03/26 found scattered chin hairs approximately one-half to three-fourths of an inch long. The resident stated staff had not asked about shaving and said it would be good to have a time and place to get it done, adding that the facial hair bothered her and made her feel like an odd ball. A CNA confirmed the resident had facial hair on her chin and stated her scheduled shower days were Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and that the facial hair should have been taken care of. The ADON confirmed CNAs were expected to assess for facial hair on male and female residents during shower time and stated leaving female residents with unwanted facial hair was a dignity issue and not acceptable.
Failure to Provide Grooming and Facial Hair Removal
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary ADL services for two sampled residents who were dependent on staff assistance for personal hygiene and grooming. Facility policy stated that grooming includes shaving and removal of facial hair, and staff interviews confirmed that CNAs were responsible for shaving residents as needed during shower time. Surveyors observed Resident #67 with several long, curly facial hairs on her chin during one observation, and the hairs were still present during a later observation and interview. Resident #67, who had diagnoses including weakness and vascular dementia and a BIMS score of 4 indicating severe cognitive impairment, stated she did not know the hairs were there and said she would like someone to shave them off. Resident #59 was also observed with scattered chin hairs approximately one-half to three-fourths of an inch long. She stated she could not recall staff asking whether she wanted them shaved, said it would be good if staff had a time and place to get it done, and explained that the facial hair bothered her and made her feel like an odd ball. She said she wanted the hair shaved, not plucked. CNA #1, LPN #2, and the ADON all confirmed that facial hair removal should be addressed during shower time and that leaving female residents with unwanted facial hair was a dignity issue. Resident #59 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, weakness, and hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease without heart failure, and her BIMS score was 08 with MDS documentation showing substantial/maximal assistance needed for personal hygiene.
Failure to Follow Infection Control Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement and maintain an effective infection prevention and control program by not following Enhanced Barrier Precautions for Resident #91 and by not providing an appropriate biohazard container for Resident #118, who was on transmission-based precautions. The facility policy stated that red/yellow bagged barrels would be used for contact isolation. Resident #118 had a physician order for contact isolation precautions related to ESBL in urine, but during observation the resident’s room did not have a red bag/biohazard barrel for contaminated waste and PPE, and gowns, gloves, and masks were discarded in a regular trash can in the bathroom. RN #1 stated there should have been a barrel in the room, and the IP stated there should have been a red barrel in the room and that she was not aware the resident was on contact precautions. For Resident #91, signage for Enhanced Barrier Precautions was posted outside the room, and the resident had diagnoses including dysphagia following cerebral infarction and encounter for attention to gastrostomy, with an MDS showing a feeding tube. During PEG tube site care, the LPN did not perform hand hygiene and did not don the required gown before starting care. The LPN also discarded a soiled gauze pad onto the bedside table, left it there, and exited the room wearing the same soiled gloves used during care. The LPN acknowledged the error and stated that gown and glove use was required for the resident’s PEG site care, and the IP and ADON confirmed that gown and glove use, hand hygiene, and removal of soiled gloves before leaving the room were expected infection control practices.
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 Mississippi — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Mississippi
Data through May 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Jun 2025 – May 2026 against the prior period Jun 2024 – May 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): Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 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: Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 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 Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 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. Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 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 July 29, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
