Citations in Virginia
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Virginia.
Statistics for Virginia (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Virginia
Staff failed to remove alleged perpetrators from duty and fully investigate verbal abuse during two separate abuse allegations involving a resident and two CNAs. In the first event, a resident reported being intentionally pushed into a siderail during in-bed care, while multiple other residents described the same CNA as rough and having a bad attitude; despite this, the CNA completed the shift and worked additional days while the abuse investigation was open. In the second event, the same resident alleged that another CNA pushed his leg and made a profane, threatening statement, but the facility’s investigation did not address the verbal abuse allegation, and that CNA was also allowed to finish the shift and work subsequent days during the investigation. Timecard records and interviews with the administrator and DON confirmed that alleged perpetrators continued working with unrestricted access to residents while abuse allegations were under investigation, leading surveyors to identify immediate jeopardy and substandard quality of care.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and limited English proficiency sustained bilateral wrist discoloration and swelling during ADL care provided by a CNA while resisting care. Staff documentation and witness statements described the resident bumping or hitting her wrists on a wheelchair during transfer, but the CNA later stated he did not know how the injury occurred. The resident’s family reported that the resident said a large male staff member grabbed and held her hands while trying to force a nightgown change, and also reported a second, similar wrist injury incident to facility staff and APS. Despite a written abuse policy requiring immediate investigation, interviews of the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, and witnesses, and protective measures, the facility did not report the incident as abuse or injury of unknown origin, did not interview the resident or other residents, and limited its inquiry to two staff members, resulting in a cited Immediate Jeopardy deficiency for failure to prevent and investigate potential abuse.
A resident received an incorrect higher dose of Divalproex DR after the pharmacy dispensed 500 mg tablets labeled to be given multiple times daily, which did not match the physician’s order for 250 mg tablets. Nursing staff did not detect the discrepancy between the MAR and the medication card despite facility policy and expectations to verify the right dose and ensure orders matched dispensed medications. Over time, the resident developed weakness and altered mental status, was sent to the hospital at the family’s request, and was found to have an elevated valproic acid level, with hospital documentation indicating motor weakness was possibly medication-induced.
A resident with an order for Divalproex DR 250 mg, two tablets in the morning and three at bedtime, was instead given 500 mg tablets over an extended period after the contracted pharmacy dispensed the wrong strength. The MAR continued to reflect the 250 mg order and was signed daily as given, while nurses did not detect that the medication cards contained a different strength than the physician’s order. The resident later developed altered mental status and was sent to the ER, and a NP documented that the resident had been receiving the incorrect Divalproex dose. Staff interviews and facility policy confirmed that nurses were expected to verify the right dose by comparing the medication label to the MAR and order, but this verification process failed in this case.
A resident with chronic pain from degenerative disc disease and avascular necrosis experienced repeated episodes of uncontrolled pain, with scores up to 10/10, despite ongoing adjustments to analgesic medications. The care plan focused on pharmacologic interventions and monitoring but did not include any non-pharmacological pain management strategies, even as pain remained only partially controlled. Staff interviews revealed that some staff avoided the resident due to perceived rude behavior, the resident frequently refused care and appointments because of pain, and the resident requested increased narcotics and medical marijuana. The MDS coordinator stated that ineffective interventions should be revised, yet the care plan was not updated to add alternative or non-pharmacologic approaches, contrary to the facility’s own pain management policy requiring care consistent with professional standards and resident goals and preferences.
The facility failed to implement its abuse policy when a resident made multiple abuse allegations against two CNAs. Although the administrator, acting as Abuse Coordinator, stated that policy required immediate reporting, investigation, and removal of alleged perpetrators from duty, facility records showed both CNAs continued to work their scheduled shifts during the investigation periods. Additionally, an allegation of verbal abuse by the same resident was not investigated. Review of the abuse policy confirmed the requirement for reporting, investigation, and oversight to ensure policies are followed, but these measures were not carried out, compromising resident protection during the investigation of abuse allegations.
Failure to Remove Alleged Abusers and Investigate Verbal Abuse During Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to protect residents during investigations of two separate abuse allegations made by one resident against two CNAs and failed to investigate an allegation of verbal abuse. In the first incident, the resident alleged that a CNA pushed him over "so the fuxx hard" while cleaning him on the evening shift that his head hit the siderail and that it was done on purpose. The resident contacted 911 the evening of the incident and police responded to the facility, indicating staff were aware of the allegation that same evening. The DON assessed the resident with no injury noted. Staff interviews documented that the resident became verbally and physically abusive during care, scratched staff, and that his head "tapped" the rail but not hard or on purpose. The resident, however, told another CNA that the aide had rolled him too hard, his eye hit the rail, and his legs came out of the bed, and he repeated similar details to the DON, stating the aide came in with an attitude and rolled him extra hard. As part of the facility’s internal investigation of the first incident, 12 residents were interviewed about the CNA’s care. Several residents reported that the CNA was rough, pulled them over hard, almost threw them on the floor when turning them in bed, had a bad attitude, and one resident did not want the CNA in her room. Despite these concerns and the resident’s allegation of being intentionally pushed, the CNA was allowed to complete her shift and to work subsequent scheduled shifts while the investigation was ongoing. Timecard records showed that the CNA worked the night of the incident and additional shifts on the following days and was paid for those hours. Although a suspension notice was later dated and an involuntary termination recorded, the contemporaneous documentation and time records demonstrated that the CNA remained in the building and had access to residents during the open abuse investigation. In the second incident, the same resident alleged that another CNA verbally and physically abused him during ADL care. The resident reported that the CNA pushed his leg down harder and stated, "I want to fuck with you now," and he called 911 to report that a staff member pushed his leg. Four staff members present in the room provided statements that no one harmed him, describing that his leg was lifted to remove a pillow and dirty sheets and then set down softly, after which he began yelling, accusing the CNA of cracking his leg and hip, cursing staff, and digging his fingernails into a staff member’s arm. Police interviewed staff and concluded that no harm was done to the resident. The facility’s investigation included resident safety interviews, one of which noted a resident did not feel safe on certain shifts due to staff. However, the verbal abuse allegation (the reported statement "I want to fuck with you now") was not addressed in the facility’s investigation, and the CNA involved was allowed to complete her shift and work additional scheduled days while the investigation was in progress. The administrator later acknowledged that she did not instruct the CNA to go home and that everyone "stayed kinda together" during the investigation. These actions and inactions resulted in surveyors identifying immediate jeopardy and substandard quality of care due to residents not being protected from alleged perpetrators during abuse investigations.
Failure to Implement Abuse Policy and Investigate Resident Wrist Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its abuse policy and to ensure a resident’s safety following an injury sustained during ADL care by a CNA, and the failure to investigate to rule out abuse. The resident, identified as R94, was admitted with diagnoses including altered mental status and had a BIMS score of 11/15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Her preferred language was Korean. Her care plan, initiated months before the incident, addressed discoloration but was not updated after she sustained injuries to her wrist on 03/20/25. The facility did not report the incident to the state survey agency, and the CEO confirmed there was no investigation for the 03/20/25 incident, only a grievance form. On 03/20/25, an incident report documented that CNA2 informed RN1 that the resident developed discoloration and swelling of both wrists during ADL care when changing clothes, while the resident was resisting care. The report stated that the resident bumped her wrists against the wheelchair during transfer, and that CNA2 was removed from the assignment and educated to stop providing care if a resident resists. Employee witness statements from RN1 and CNA2 described the resident resisting care and bumping or hitting her wrists on the wheelchair, with RN1 noting that the resident was unable to communicate coherent English when questioned. CNA3’s statement only indicated that she was asked to assist, found the resident agitated, and that the nurse assessed and notified others. A nurse’s note by RN1 documented bilateral wrist discoloration and swelling after an “accident” during clothes changing while the resident was resisting, and that ice was applied. In a later interview, CNA2 stated he attempted to transfer the resident from the wheelchair to bed after toileting, that she resisted by lifting her arms, and that he did not know how the injury occurred. He confirmed the injury was not present before he attempted the transfer and that he remained assigned to the resident for the rest of the shift. The resident’s family member reported that the resident, who did not speak English, told her that during the 03/20/25 incident she refused to be changed into a nightgown and staff grabbed her hand and tried to force her, describing the staff as a big Black man. The family member also reported a second, similar wrist injury incident with a big Black male staff member and stated she reported these to facility staff and APS. The Social Service Director acknowledged that she did not interview the resident or other residents or complete a trauma assessment regarding the 03/20/25 allegation, despite stating that such steps were part of the usual abuse investigation process. The Administrator, who was the DON at the time, stated that the incident was not reported as abuse or injury of unknown origin because CNA2 self-reported that the injury occurred during care and denied abuse, and that only CNA2 and RN1 were interviewed. This was inconsistent with the facility’s written abuse policy, which required immediate investigation, interviews of all involved persons including the alleged victim and witnesses, and measures to protect residents from harm during and after the investigation. The facility’s abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy required an immediate investigation when there was suspicion or reports of abuse, including identifying and interviewing the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others with knowledge, and ensuring residents were protected from physical and psychosocial harm during and after the investigation. Examples in the policy included responding immediately to protect the alleged victim, examining the alleged victim for signs of injury, and making room or staffing changes if necessary to protect residents from the alleged perpetrator. Despite this, the Social Service Director did not conduct resident or collateral interviews or trauma assessments, and the Administrator confirmed that the facility limited its inquiry to CNA2 and RN1 and did not treat the event as an injury of unknown origin or an abuse allegation. The failure to follow these procedures and to ensure the resident’s protection and a thorough investigation led to the cited deficiency under 42 CFR §483.12 Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, with Immediate Jeopardy identified at a scope and severity level J.
Significant Medication Error From Incorrect Divalproex Dose
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was free from significant medication errors, specifically related to incorrect dosing of Divalproex DR. Clinical record review showed that the resident was being seen repeatedly by advanced practice providers in June for muscle weakness and weakness. A nurse practitioner documented on 6/23/25 that the resident’s weakness was found to be due to an incorrect medication dose being dispensed, noting a 500 mg dose instead of the ordered 250 mg. The physician’s order specified Divalproex DR 250 mg tablets, but the medication dispensed and administered was Divalproex DR 500 mg. Pharmacy records and interviews confirmed that on 5/18/25, the pharmacy dispensed 150 tablets of Divalproex DR 500 mg with a label instructing staff to give two tablets in the morning and three at bedtime, which did not match the physician’s order for 250 mg tablets. Nursing staff interviews indicated that nurses were expected to follow the facility’s medication administration policy, including verifying the right resident, right medication, right dose, and ensuring the medication card matched the MAR. The DON and multiple LPNs stated that if the pharmacy sent the wrong medication or if the milligrams did not match the MAR, nurses were expected to identify and correct the discrepancy, but this did not occur in this case. On 6/20/25, the resident was assessed by an LPN who initially stated she did not observe changes in condition, but her documentation reflected that the resident had altered mental status, and the resident’s mother requested hospital transfer. At the hospital, the discharge summary indicated that the resident’s motor weakness was possibly medication-induced, and lab results showed a valproic acid level of 115, above the normal range of 50–100. A physician assistant interviewed later confirmed that increased doses of Divalproex DR can cause drowsiness, muscle weakness, skin reactions, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting. These findings collectively demonstrate that the resident received an incorrect, higher dose of Divalproex DR over time, constituting a significant medication error that resulted in harm.
Prolonged Administration of Incorrect Divalproex Dose Due to Pharmacy and Nursing Verification Failures
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure medications were administered according to professional standards of nursing practice for one resident. The resident had a physician’s order for Divalproex DR 250 mg, to be given as two tablets in the morning and three tablets at bedtime. Review of the MAR for May and June 2025 showed that this ordered regimen was documented as being administered daily. However, the resident’s clinical record and subsequent review revealed that the resident was actually receiving Divalproex DR 500 mg tablets instead of the ordered 250 mg tablets, resulting in administration of an incorrect dose over an extended period. On 6/20/25, the resident experienced a change in condition characterized by altered mental status, and the resident’s mother reported that the resident’s mental status and demeanor were off and requested transfer to the ER for evaluation. A nurse practitioner’s progress note dated 6/23/25, following the resident’s hospitalization, documented that the resident had been receiving the incorrect dose of Divalproex DR, specifically 500 mg daily instead of the 250 mg dose prescribed by the physician. There was no physician order in the medical record authorizing a change to Divalproex DR 500 mg. Interviews and documentation showed that the contracted pharmacy dispensed Divalproex DR 500 mg tablets on 5/18/25 instead of the ordered 250 mg strength, and that nursing staff continued to administer and sign off the medication on the MAR without identifying the discrepancy between the medication card and the physician’s order. The facility’s own medication administration policy and staff interviews indicated that nurses were expected to compare the medication label to the MAR and physician’s order, verify the right dose, and correct any mismatch, but this did not occur in this case. As a result, the resident received the wrong dose of Divalproex DR for a prolonged period before the error was identified.
Failure to Provide Effective, Multimodal Pain Management
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure effective pain management for a resident with chronic pain syndrome related to degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and avascular necrosis of the left hip. The resident’s care plan identified bilateral hip pain and neuropathic pain, with goals for the resident to verbalize relief of pain, cope with and complete activities with pain relief, and remain free from interruption in normal activities due to pain. Interventions in the care plan focused on administering analgesics as ordered, anticipating the resident’s need for pain relief, responding promptly to complaints of pain, and evaluating the effectiveness of pain interventions, including reviewing compliance, symptom alleviation, dosing schedules, resident satisfaction, and impact on function and cognition. However, the care plan, initiated in April 2024 and last revised in December 2025, did not include any non-pharmacological interventions to assist with alleviating the resident’s pain. Clinical record review showed multiple episodes of uncontrolled pain despite ongoing pharmacologic management. A nursing note documented that staff were called to the resident’s room for increased, uncontrolled pain with a reported pain score of 10/10, and the physician assistant provided a one-time order for hydrocodone/acetaminophen 10-325 mg. Subsequent progress notes indicated chronic pain syndrome with ongoing symptom review and pain described as only partially controlled, with continued reports of uncontrolled pain and pain ratings up to 10/10. Although analgesic dosages were adjusted over time, there was no evidence in the record that non-pharmacological or alternative pain management approaches were implemented or documented to help alleviate the resident’s pain. Staff interviews further illustrated issues with the resident’s pain management and staff response. An LPN reported that the resident was sometimes rude and disrespectful, and stated that staff ignored and avoided the resident’s room because of how he spoke to people. The assistant DON reported that the resident refused care daily due to pain, screamed out when his left leg was moved, and declined care, assistance, and appointments because of pain, while also requesting increased pain medication dosages and medical marijuana. The MDS coordinator explained that care plans should be updated with changes in condition or ineffective interventions, and that interventions should be changed if not effective, but there was no indication that non-pharmacological interventions were added to the care plan despite ongoing uncontrolled pain. The facility’s own pain management policy required pain management consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident’s goals and preferences, but documentation and interviews showed that non-pharmacological pain interventions were not developed or implemented for this resident.
Failure to Implement Abuse Policy and Protect Residents During Abuse Investigations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility administrator, who also served as the Abuse Coordinator, failing to effectively implement the facility’s abuse policy when allegations of abuse and neglect were made by Resident #1 on two separate occasions involving two different CNAs. Facility documentation and staff interviews showed that, despite the administrator’s statement that the policy required immediate reporting to state agencies, initiation of an investigation, and removal and suspension of the alleged perpetrator from the facility during the investigation, the alleged perpetrators were not removed from duty. In the first incident, involving CNA1, timecard records showed that CNA1 completed the shift on the day of the incident and continued to work subsequent shifts during the investigation period. In the second incident, involving CNA2, timecard records showed that CNA2 completed the scheduled shift on the day of the incident and continued to work multiple scheduled shifts afterward while the allegation was under investigation. The report further notes that Resident #1 also made an allegation of verbal abuse that was not investigated by the facility. Review of the facility’s “Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation” policy indicated that the facility would designate an Abuse Coordinator responsible for reporting suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the state survey agency and other officials, and that the facility would provide ongoing oversight and supervision of staff to ensure policies were implemented as written. The failure of the Abuse Coordinator to remove the alleged perpetrators from the facility during the investigations and to investigate the verbal abuse allegation did not ensure the safety and protection of Resident #1 and other residents from potential abuse, as stated in the findings.
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 Virginia — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Virginia
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.
