Citations in North Dakota
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in North Dakota.
Statistics for North Dakota (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in North Dakota
A resident with dementia, restlessness, agitation, and a documented history of entering others’ rooms, rummaging, and exhibiting verbal and physical behaviors was involved in multiple abusive encounters with other residents. In separate incidents, this resident hit another resident in a TV lounge after handling that resident’s bag, punched a resident on the chin/cheek while following behind with a walker, grabbed another resident’s arm near the TV leading to mutual hitting and a fall onto a recliner occupied by a third resident, kicked a resident while being escorted to dinner, and lifted a resident’s chair cushion while searching for a wallet, leading to a profane verbal exchange. Several of the involved residents had impaired cognition, while others had intact cognition but histories of mood and behavioral issues. Staff interviews showed limited description of immediate protective actions when witnessing resident-to-resident aggression, and an administrator noted that the aggressive resident had not been evaluated by psychiatry for an extended period. The facility failed to prevent repeated verbal and physical abuse among residents, resulting in retaliatory abuse toward the aggressive resident.
Two residents did not receive care that maintained their dignity during grooming and personal hygiene. One resident had noticeable facial hair and reported preferring to be shaved with an electric razor, but stated that only a straight razor was available, despite facility policy and administrative statements that grooming should follow resident preference and that shaving materials are provided. Another resident was transferred to bed by a nurse and a CNA, given perineal care, and placed in a clean brief, but staff left the resident’s pants down and simply covered the resident with a blanket, contrary to administrative expectations that pants be pulled up or removed in bed according to resident preference.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, and gait/mobility abnormalities had a care plan requiring a stand-pivot transfer with two staff and a gait belt. During an observed toileting transfer, two CNAs assisted the resident, who showed visible shakiness and an unsteady gait, but one CNA placed her hands around the resident’s ribcage to move the resident back to the wheelchair instead of using a gait belt as required. The CNA later acknowledged not using a gait belt, and administrative staff confirmed their expectation that gait belts be used during transfers per the care plan.
Staff failed to follow infection prevention and control policies when handling reusable equipment and soiled linens for two residents, including one on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). A CNA removed a full body mechanical lift from a resident’s room without disinfecting it, despite facility expectations for cleaning after each use. In a separate incident, CNAs entered the room of a resident on EBP wearing only gloves initially, and one CNA placed soiled linens on the floor instead of directly into a bag, even after donning a gown. An RN later confirmed that staff were expected to disinfect lifts after every use, avoid placing soiled linen on the floor, and wear gowns upon entering EBP rooms.
The facility failed to prevent resident-to-resident physical abuse when a cognitively impaired resident with dementia-related behavioral issues, already care planned for aggressive mood fluctuations and a history of physical contact, grabbed and forcefully squeezed another resident’s arm in a hallway and, in a separate episode, yelled and struck another cognitively impaired resident in the face multiple times while they were seated together. In both incidents, the affected residents, who had dementia and other psychiatric diagnoses, reported or were documented as having been physically assaulted, though no injuries were ultimately noted, demonstrating that residents were not kept free from abuse by another resident as required by facility policy.
The facility failed to investigate two separate resident-on-resident altercations involving a cognitively impaired resident with dementia, anxiety, and a care plan noting aggressive mood fluctuations and prior physical contact with others. In the first incident, this resident grabbed and forcefully squeezed another resident’s arm in a hallway after being tapped on the shoulder, but the facility did not complete the interviews and root cause analysis required by its abuse policy. In the second incident, the same resident began yelling, swinging, and striking another resident in the face multiple times while they were sitting and talking; although the assaulted resident had no noted injuries and the aggressor was moved to a quiet area, there is no evidence of a thorough abuse investigation or evaluation of interventions after the initial event.
Failure to Prevent Repeated Resident-to-Resident Verbal and Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect multiple residents from verbal and physical abuse by another resident with known behavioral issues. Facility policies on resident-to-resident altercations and abuse/neglect defined verbally aggressive behaviors such as screaming and cursing, and physically aggressive behaviors such as hitting, kicking, grabbing, pushing, and rummaging through others’ property, and affirmed residents’ right to be free from verbal, physical, and mental abuse. Resident #1 had documented diagnoses including dementia, restlessness, and agitation, with a care plan noting a history of entering other residents’ rooms, rummaging, and exhibiting verbal and physical behaviors. Despite this, Resident #1 was involved in multiple altercations with other residents over a short period. In one incident with Resident #3, video and investigation documentation showed Resident #3 sitting in a recliner in a common TV area while Resident #1 was near other recliners. Resident #3 told Resident #1 to leave electrical cords alone, then got up and approached Resident #1. Resident #1 began to handle Resident #3’s bag on the recliner, after which Resident #3 hit Resident #1 on the left side of the head, and Resident #1 hit Resident #3 on the left arm. Resident #3 had a history of depression, anxiety, mental disorder, mild cognitive disorder, and prior verbal and physical behaviors, with an MDS indicating intact cognition. In another incident with Resident #4, video review and notes showed Resident #4 ambulating with a walker past the nurse’s station into the TV area, followed closely by Resident #1. Resident #1 was seen standing directly behind Resident #4, appearing to make a comment; Resident #4 swatted at Resident #1, and Resident #1 then struck Resident #4 on the left chin/cheek area. A progress note documented that Resident #1 punched Resident #4 when Resident #4 did not respond to Resident #1’s attempt to engage in conversation. Additional altercations involved Resident #2, #5, and #6. In the incident with Resident #2, video review showed Resident #1 standing in front of the TV fidgeting with the control box, then later walking over to Resident #2 and grabbing her arm as if to guide her away from the TV. Resident #2 responded by hitting Resident #1’s left arm, and Resident #1 hit her back on the right arm; both then grabbed each other, fell onto a recliner occupied by another resident, and staff intervened. Resident #2’s MDS indicated severely impaired cognition, and she sustained transient red marks on her head and upper inner arm. In another event, the activity director was walking residents to dinner when Resident #1 kicked Resident #5, who was walking in front, and then chuckled; Resident #5, who also had severely impaired cognition, recalled being kicked and stated the other resident was “not 100 percent.” In a separate episode with Resident #6, staff heard Resident #6 yelling profanities at Resident #1, who was lifting her chair cushion looking for his wallet; Resident #1 raised his voice and called her an explicit name, and Resident #6 prepared to remove her shoe to use toward him before staff intervened. Resident #6, with intact cognition, later stated that Resident #1 wanted to hurt her and that he had hit her friend (Resident #4) for no reason. Staff interviews further illustrated gaps in protecting residents from abuse. One staff member, when asked what she would do if she witnessed a resident hit another resident, stated she would get the RNs and “try to get a hold of someone,” without describing immediate protective interventions. An administrative staff member reported that Resident #1 had not been seen by psychiatry since 2024, despite his documented dementia with psychotic disturbances and ongoing behavioral issues. Across these events, the facility did not prevent repeated verbal and physical altercations initiated or escalated by Resident #1 toward other residents, which led to retaliatory physical and verbal abuse by those residents toward Resident #1.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity During Grooming and Personal Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promote and maintain resident dignity for two residents who required assistance with personal hygiene and care. Facility policy on promoting/maintaining resident dignity stated that residents should be groomed and dressed according to their preferences, and the grooming policy specified assisting residents with facial hair care to maintain proper hygiene. During observation, one resident was noted to have noticeable facial hair and, in an interview, stated a preference to have facial hair shaved with an electric razor; the resident reported that the facility only had a straight razor available. An administrative staff member stated that all residents are shaved per their preferences and that shaving materials are provided, which conflicted with the resident’s report. In a separate observation, a nurse and a CNA transferred another resident from a wheelchair to a bed, completed perineal care, applied a clean brief, and then covered the resident with a blanket without pulling up the resident’s pants. Later, an administrative staff member stated that she expected staff to either pull up or remove residents’ pants in bed according to resident preference, indicating that the observed practice did not align with facility expectations or policies regarding resident dignity and grooming.
Failure to Use Gait Belt During Stand-Pivot Transfer
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s failure to follow its Safe Resident Handling/Transfers policy and the resident’s care plan requiring use of a gait belt during transfers. The facility policy stated that residents are to be handled and transferred safely to prevent or minimize risk for injury and that lifting and transferring will be performed according to the resident’s individual plan of care. Resident #2’s medical record showed diagnoses of Parkinson’s disease, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. The resident’s current care plan specified a stand-pivot transfer with two staff assisting and the use of a gait belt. During an observation, two CNAs wheeled Resident #2 to the toilet, where the resident used grab bars to transfer from the wheelchair to the toilet, exhibiting visible shakiness and an unsteady gait. After toileting, one CNA cued the resident to stand, applied a clean brief and pants, then placed her hands around the resident’s ribcage to assist the resident back to the wheelchair instead of using a gait belt as required by the care plan. The CNA later confirmed in an interview that a gait belt was not used during toileting care. In a separate interview, three administrative staff members stated they expected staff to utilize a gait belt during transfers as care planned.
Failure to Follow Infection Control Practices for Equipment Cleaning and EBP
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that staff did not follow the facility’s infection prevention and control policies related to cleaning reusable equipment, handling soiled linen, and implementing enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). The facility’s policies required that reusable equipment be cleaned and disinfected according to current procedures and manufacturer’s instructions after each resident use, and that EBP involve targeted gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities. During observation, a CNA removed a full body mechanical lift from a resident’s room and failed to disinfect it, while stating that lifts and wheelchairs were cleaned by the night shift, contrary to the facility’s expectation that the lift be disinfected after every use. Surveyors also observed failures in infection control practices for a resident on EBP. Two CNAs entered the resident’s room and initially only applied gloves. One CNA placed soiled linen from the floor into a bag, and after being instructed by a nurse to apply PPE, the CNA then donned a gown but removed soiled linen from the bed and again placed it on the floor. The nurse stated that soiled linens should be placed directly into a bag and not on the floor. An administrative staff member later confirmed that staff were expected to disinfect full body mechanical lifts after every use, avoid placing soiled linen on the floor, and wear gowns when entering rooms requiring EBP precautions.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect two residents from physical abuse by another resident. Facility policy on abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and misappropriation of resident property, dated 07/07/21, states that all residents have the right to be free from verbal, sexual, and physical abuse and must not be subject to abuse by anyone, including other residents. Despite this policy, one resident with Alzheimer's disease, restlessness and agitation, anxiety disorder, and severely impaired cognition, who had a care plan noting aggressive mood fluctuations related to dementia and anxiety and a history of physical contact with another resident, physically grabbed, pulled, and squeezed another resident's arm in a hallway incident. The resident whose arm was grabbed had non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, and intact cognition, and later reported that the aggressor was strong and that she had to pull her arm away, though she stated she was not hurt. In a separate incident, the same cognitively impaired resident with dementia-related behavioral issues struck another resident multiple times in the face while they were sitting next to each other and talking. The progress note documented that the aggressor began yelling and swinging, hitting the other resident in the face multiple times. The resident who was hit, who had dementia, anxiety, behavior disturbance, psychotic disorder, and severely impaired cognition, reported at the time that the other resident “just started hitting me in the face” and that she moved away, and no injuries or pain were noted on assessment. Both involved residents in this second incident were described as confused and unable to be interviewed for the facility’s FRI investigation. The facility’s failure to prevent these two episodes of resident-to-resident physical abuse, despite known behavioral risks and a care plan addressing aggressive behavior, resulted in residents not remaining free from abuse as required by facility policy.
Failure to Investigate Resident-on-Resident Abuse Incidents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to investigate alleged violations of abuse involving two residents who were physically assaulted by another resident with a known history of aggressive mood fluctuations related to dementia and anxiety. Facility policy on Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment, and Misappropriation of Resident Property required that the nurse begin an investigation immediately, including root cause analysis and interviews with staff, roommates, family, and visitors. An FRI dated 01/25/26 documented an incident in which one resident grabbed, pulled, and squeezed another resident’s arm in the west hallway. The final investigation note only reflected that the resident whose arm was grabbed reported that the aggressor was strong but that her arm was okay, and later described that she had tapped the aggressor on the shoulder to compliment her sweater, after which the aggressor grabbed her arm hard and she had to pull away. There is no documentation in the report of a comprehensive investigation consistent with facility policy. A second FRI dated 02/02/26 documented that the same aggressive resident began yelling, swinging, and hitting another resident in the face multiple times while they were sitting together and talking. The assaulted resident stated that the aggressor “just started hitting me in the face, so I moved away from her” and suggested the aggressor “needs a shot or something.” Assessment at that time showed no injuries and no pain, and the aggressor was moved to a quiet area. Medical records showed the aggressor had Alzheimer’s disease, restlessness and agitation, anxiety disorder, severely impaired cognition, and a care plan noting aggressive mood fluctuations and a history of physical contact with another resident, with an intervention to maintain distance from others when appropriate for safety. The other involved residents had dementia and anxiety disorders, with one having intact cognition and the other severely impaired cognition. Although both incidents were reported to facility administration and the state agency, the facility did not conduct investigations of the altercations in accordance with its policy, nor did it implement and evaluate appropriate interventions following the first incident.
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 North Dakota — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in North Dakota
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).
No tags meet the emerging criteria for this period — nothing rare is spiking right now.
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.
