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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
