Based on observations, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to provide a safe sanitary environment and assist in the prevention, development, and transmission of communicable disease and infection for all facility residents and the facility staff failed to utilize appropriate droplet precaution signage for (4) four of (6) six residents identified for droplet precautions, Resident #2, Resident #16, Resident #32, and Resident #48 and the facility staff failed to utilize appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for (2) two of (6) six residents on droplet precautions, Resident #16 and Resident #22 and the facility staff failed to utilize appropriate PPE… …
F880 citations in Virginia
Infection prevention and control · Infection Control Deficiencies
Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
Against expectation — 2025
Virginia cites F880 less often than its own record predicts
0.62 times the national share — cited less often here than elsewhere.
Of every deficiency written in Virginia in 2025, this is the portion that was F880.
Each state is measured against its own expected share, not against other states.
In the surveyor’s words
What Virginia surveyors wrote
F880 findings written in Virginia, one from each severity band recorded here, most serious first.
Severity is as the surveyor wrote it. Some findings had already been corrected before the survey.
Based on, staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow infection control practices to control and prevent infections, COVID-19, for 2 Residents (Resident #6 & #7) in a survey sample of 9 Residents, which resulted in harm for Resident #6. 1. The facility staff failed to properly isolate Resident #7, who displayed symptoms of COVID-19, which resulted in harm of Resident #6. The findings included: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a readmission date of [DATE]. Resident #7 discharged from the facility on [DATE]. [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Resident #7's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of [DATE] was coded as an admission assessment. …
Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were implemented for one of seven residents (Resident (R) 116) reviewed for infection control out of a sample of 47 residents. R116 had a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line, which required EBP; however, there was no EBP order in place. This had the potential to increase the risk of infection and the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms among residents and staff. Findings include: Review of R116's Resident Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Resident tab, revealed R116 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of sepsis and pneumonia. …
The short window
Recent years
| Year | Share of Virginia citations | vs expected |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2.63% | 0.51× |
| 2024 | 2.56% | 0.46× |
| 2025 | 3.83% | 0.62× |
Shares of citations, not counts: earlier years hold fewer inspections.
What else Virginia surveyors cite →
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction