Citations in Rhode Island
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Rhode Island.
Statistics for Rhode Island (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Rhode Island
The facility failed to follow physician orders for post-fall care for three anticoagulated residents who experienced falls. One resident on a blood thinner with a head injury was ordered to be transferred to the ED after a telehealth evaluation, but an LPN did not send the resident, citing instructions to contact a supervisor first and inability to reach that supervisor. For two other residents on anticoagulants, providers ordered intensive neuro checks (every 15 minutes, then every 30 minutes, then hourly, then every 4 hours), but staff instead performed neuro checks only once per shift for 72 hours. The DON and Medical Director acknowledged that the transfer and monitoring orders were not implemented as written.
A resident with intact cognition and psychiatric diagnoses sustained a left eyebrow laceration when another resident with a documented history of escalating aggressive and threatening behaviors struck them with a cane during a hallway dispute. The aggressive resident had multiple prior documented incidents, including verbal threats to kill others, attacking a roommate with a cane over TV volume, throwing objects during activities, and throwing a lunch plate at staff. Despite these events, the care plan was not updated with interventions to address physical aggression toward other residents, and a psychiatric recommendation for PRN trazodone for agitation, anxiety, and insomnia was only implemented as PRN for insomnia. The failure to assess, monitor, and implement effective interventions for the aggressive resident’s behaviors led to the assault and injury and, per the report, placed this and other residents at risk of serious physical and psychosocial harm.
A resident with impulse disorder, mood and anxiety diagnoses, and a history of escalating verbal and physical aggression had multiple documented incidents of threats, object throwing, and assault with a cane. Despite a psychiatric consult recommending PRN trazodone for agitation, anxiety, and insomnia, the provider order listed insomnia only, and the care plan was not updated with specific interventions to address the resident’s physically aggressive behaviors after several documented events. Subsequently, the resident struck another resident with a cane, causing a facial laceration that required wound closure and ongoing treatment.
The facility failed to properly screen and document clearance for a NA with disqualifying criminal history information before hire, as required by its abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy. A BCI check showed disqualifying information, yet the NA was hired, completed orientation, and worked independently based only on verbal disclosure of an old drug-related charge, without written details or verification. Later, a staff member reported witnessing this NA grab a resident’s face and kiss the resident on the lips, and a community complaint alleged inappropriate interactions with the same resident, prompting involvement of local police.
A resident with anxiety disorder and PTSD was unable to attend meals and activities with peers because the facility lost the resident's clothing after it was sent to laundry. The resident was observed in a hospital gown with only a few clothing items in the room, and the record lacked an admission inventory of belongings. The DON/Administrator reported that laundry was handled by an outside vendor without a tracking system or item documentation.
A resident with dementia and severely impaired cognition was subjected to repeated non-consensual kissing on the lips by an NA, who entered the resident’s room during care, verbally expressed affection, and then kissed the resident on the mouth on at least two separate occasions witnessed by staff. One staff member delayed reporting the first incident due to fear of the NA. These actions occurred despite a facility policy defining sexual abuse as any non-consensual sexual act and requiring protections of residents’ rights and well-being.
Failure to Follow Post-Fall Physician Orders for Anticoagulated Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement physician orders for post-fall care, including hospital transfer and neurological monitoring, for residents on anticoagulant therapy. One resident with atrial fibrillation on Xarelto experienced an unwitnessed fall with a scalp laceration and head lump. The on-call provider, after a telehealth evaluation, ordered transfer to the ED and wrote an order directing that the resident be sent to the hospital. The resident was not transferred as ordered, and an additional order for vital signs and neuro checks every shift for 72 hours after the fall was not completed as ordered on one of the shifts. The LPN caring for this resident stated she did not send the resident to the ED because she had been instructed to call a supervisor before sending residents out, and she was unable to reach the supervisor during the shift. A second resident, also with atrial fibrillation and on Xarelto, had an unwitnessed fall with injury. The on-call provider was notified and ordered neuro checks every 15 minutes for one hour, every 30 minutes for one hour, hourly for four hours, then every four hours for an additional 24 hours. A physician’s order reflecting this schedule was scanned into the EMR. However, the neuro checks were not completed as ordered; instead, they were performed only once per shift for 72 hours. The RN who authored the progress note documented the fall and the resident’s anticoagulant use, and later stated she could not remember why she did not transcribe and complete the neuro checks as ordered. A third resident with atrial fibrillation on Apixaban had a non-injury fall after attempting to walk independently. The on-call provider ordered neuro checks every 15 minutes for one hour, every 30 minutes for one hour, hourly for four hours, and then every four hours for an additional 24 hours, and this order was scanned into the EMR. The record did not show that these neuro checks were completed as ordered; instead, neuro checks were documented only once per shift for 72 hours. The Medical Director stated he would have expected the first resident to be transferred to the ED as ordered and that the facility should not override a provider’s order. The DON acknowledged that the transfer order and the ordered monitoring for the first resident were not followed as written, and that for the second and third residents, staff performed only once-per-shift neuro checks instead of the more frequent monitoring ordered by the providers.
Failure to Manage Escalating Aggression Leading to Resident-to-Resident Assault
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a cognitively intact resident, Resident ID #1, from abuse by another resident with a known history of escalating aggression, Resident ID #2. Resident ID #1 was admitted in October 2025 with diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and had a BIMS score of 14/15, indicating intact cognition. On 4/27/2026, progress notes documented that Resident ID #1 was on the receiving end of a physical altercation with another resident and was found with a deep bleeding abrasion to the left eyebrow. A subsequent nursing note described a new laceration to the left eyebrow measuring 0.5 cm by 2.0 cm by 0.1 cm, related to a resident-to-resident incident, for which wound closure strips were applied. Resident ID #1 requested police involvement and a police report, and refused transfer to the hospital for sutures. Resident ID #2 had been admitted in December 2024 with multiple psychiatric and behavioral diagnoses, including impulse disorder, adjustment disorder with mixed emotions and conduct, irritability and anger, restlessness and agitation, persistent mood disorder, and generalized anxiety. A Quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 13/15 and documented both physical and verbal behaviors during the look-back period. Progress notes over several months recorded a pattern of escalating aggressive and threatening behaviors: on 9/13/2025, Resident ID #2 threatened to slit another resident’s throat and made additional threats toward staff; on 11/7/2025, the resident was involved in a verbal dispute with raised voice, name-calling, and verbal threats; on 12/28/2025, after another resident struck Resident ID #2 with a helmet, Resident ID #2 was overheard threatening to kill that resident if touched again. On 2/21/2026, the on-call provider documented that Resident ID #2 attacked a roommate with a cane over TV volume and required ER transfer for psychiatric evaluation. Subsequent notes on 3/9/2026 and 4/10/2026 described the resident throwing poker chips on the floor, yelling and swearing at staff and residents, and throwing a lunch plate across the nurses’ station at a nursing assistant due to dissatisfaction with portion size. Despite this documented pattern, the care plan for Resident ID #2, dated 1/16/2025, only indicated a behavior problem of being verbally aggressive toward staff with resident-to-resident altercations on 12/28/2025, 2/21/2026, and 4/27/2026, and record review failed to show added interventions to mitigate the risk of physical aggression toward other residents after the 2/21/2026 cane attack and the object-throwing incidents on 3/9/2026 and 4/10/2026. A psychiatric evaluation on 4/23/2026 recommended starting trazodone 25 mg twice daily as needed for agitation, anxiety, and insomnia, with monitoring of response and tolerability. However, the physician’s order entered on 4/24/2026 specified trazodone 25 mg twice daily as needed only for insomnia, and record review did not show that agitation and anxiety were included as indications for use. During interviews, the RNP and the DON stated it was their expectation that agitation and anxiety would have been included in the trazodone order, and the DON was unable to provide evidence that the care plan had been updated with interventions to address Resident ID #2’s physically aggressive behaviors documented on 2/21/2026, 3/9/2026, and 4/10/2026. On 4/27/2026, the DON documented that Resident ID #2 was ambulating down the hall toward his/her room while Resident ID #1 was walking in the opposite direction, and the two residents began a verbal dispute. Before staff could intervene, Resident ID #2 used his/her cane to make contact with Resident ID #1, resulting in the eyebrow laceration that required steri-strips and ongoing wound treatment. A police incident report recorded that Resident ID #1 stated being struck with a walking cane, wanted to press charges, and that Resident ID #2 admitted to striking Resident ID #1, leading to an arrest on one count of felony assault with a dangerous weapon. The facility’s failure to assess, monitor, and implement effective interventions for Resident ID #2’s known and escalating aggressive behaviors, including failure to update the care plan after prior incidents and failure to fully implement psychiatric recommendations, resulted in this resident-to-resident altercation and injury, and the report states that this failure placed Resident ID #1 and other residents at risk of serious physical and psychosocial harm.
Failure to Implement Psychiatric Recommendations and Update Behavior Care Plan Leading to Resident Altercation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide necessary behavioral health services and care planning for a resident with a documented history of psychiatric conditions and aggressive behaviors. The resident was admitted in December 2024 with diagnoses including impulse disorder, adjustment disorder with mixed emotions and conduct, irritability and anger, restlessness and agitation, persistent mood disorder, and generalized anxiety. A Quarterly MDS showed intact cognition with a BIMS score of 13/15 and documented physical and verbal behaviors during the look-back period. Over time, multiple behavioral incidents were recorded, including threats to slit another resident’s throat during a smoking session, verbal disputes with name-calling and threats, and a statement to another resident that if touched again the resident would be killed. Further documentation showed escalating behaviors, including an incident where the resident attacked a roommate with a cane over television volume and required ER transfer for psychiatric evaluation, throwing poker chips and yelling when not winning at Bingo, causing the roommate to avoid the shared bathroom due to inappropriate comments and frustration over the light being turned on at night, and throwing a lunch plate across the nurses’ station at a nursing assistant over portion size. The care plan, initiated in January 2025 for verbal aggression and resident-to-resident altercations, did not contain added interventions to address the resident’s physically aggressive behaviors toward others after the incidents on 2/21/2026, 3/9/2026, and 4/10/2026. The DNS later could not provide evidence that the care plan had been updated with interventions to mitigate the risk of these physically aggressive behaviors or to guide staff in ensuring the safety of other residents. On 4/23/2026, a psychiatric evaluation recommended starting trazodone 25 mg twice daily as needed for agitation, anxiety, and insomnia, with monitoring of response and tolerability. However, the physician’s order dated 4/24/2026 implemented trazodone 25 mg twice daily as needed for insomnia only, and the record lacked evidence that agitation and anxiety were included as indications for use as recommended by the consulting psychiatrist. Both the RNP and the DNS stated it was their expectation that the trazodone order would have included agitation and anxiety. Following this incomplete implementation of the psychiatric recommendation and the lack of updated behavioral interventions in the care plan, a resident-to-resident altercation occurred on 4/27/2026 in which the resident struck another resident with a cane, causing a laceration to the left eyebrow that required closure with steri-strips and ongoing wound treatment.
Failure to Properly Screen and Clear NA with Disqualifying Criminal History
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a prospective employee was properly screened and cleared for a history of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property before hire. A nursing assistant, identified as Staff A, was hired on 11/18/2025 and was working independently as a NA. Prior to hire, a Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) check dated 11/6/2025 showed that Staff A had disqualifying information under federal and state law. Surveyor review after discovery of the positive BCI revealed that Staff A had an extensive criminal history. Despite this, the facility proceeded with the hire and allowed Staff A to complete orientation and work independently without obtaining or maintaining documentation specifying the nature of the disqualifying information, contrary to the facility’s Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Policy, which requires screening and documentation of proof that such screening occurred. Subsequently, a facility-reported incident submitted on 4/17/2026 documented that a staff member reported witnessing Staff A grab a resident’s face and kiss the resident on the lips. A community-reported complaint submitted on 4/22/2026 alleged inappropriate interactions between the same NA and the same resident, and included a local police incident report indicating the resident’s family intended to pursue charges related to the incident. During interviews, the Human Resource Director stated that Staff A had disclosed disqualifying information related to a prior drug-related charge from about ten years earlier, but acknowledged there was no documentation specifying the nature of the disqualifying information and that this was known only by word of mouth. The Administrator stated she was aware that the BCI contained disqualifying information and that she exercised her own judgment in proceeding with the hire, and further acknowledged she did not receive documentation detailing the disqualifying information until it was brought to her attention by the surveyor.
Failure to Maintain Resident Clothing and Dignity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignity when the resident was unable to attend meals and activities with other residents because of a lack of appropriate clothing. The resident was admitted in May 2025 with diagnoses including anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, and a care plan revised on 8/25/2025 described the resident as highly social and willing to participate in a variety of activities, with an intervention to provide reminders of scheduled events. During observation on 4/29/2026, the resident was found in the room wearing a hospital gown while other residents were in the dining room for lunch. Only one pair of pants and two T-shirts were observed in the room. The resident stated that the facility lost all of the resident's clothing, including shirts, pants, shorts, and socks, after they were sent to laundry services several months earlier and were never returned. The resident reported that the Administrator was told about the missing clothing, but no follow-up occurred and the clothing was neither located nor replaced. The record did not contain an admission inventory list of the resident's belongings, and the Administrator stated that laundry was handled by an outsourced company without a tracking system or documentation identifying which items belonged to which resident.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from sexual abuse when a nursing assistant (NA) was observed kissing the resident on the lips on more than one occasion. The resident, identified as having dementia and a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0/15 indicating severely impaired cognition, had been admitted in March 2026. On one occasion, a Certified Medication Technician (CMT) reported that while she was assisting the resident with breakfast, the NA entered the room, verbally expressed affection for the resident, made a kissing noise, leaned forward, and kissed the resident on the lips. This incident made the CMT uncomfortable, and she later discussed it with another NA. A separate staff member, another NA, reported that two days earlier she had observed the same NA enter the resident’s room while morning care was being provided, ask the resident if they remembered her, state that she loved the resident, then lean toward the resident, make a kissing sound, and kiss the resident on the mouth with full lip-to-lip contact. This second NA did not report the incident at the time because she was fearful of the NA involved and only came forward after learning of the later incident. The facility’s abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy defined sexual abuse as a non-consensual sexual act of any type with a resident and required protections for each resident’s health, welfare, and rights, as well as screening of potential employees for a history of abuse. Despite this policy, the resident with severely impaired cognition was subjected to repeated non-consensual kissing by the NA.
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 Rhode Island — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Rhode Island
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.
