County Report · Buncombe (NC)

Buncombe: A Systems Problem, Not Just a Clinical One

Asheville's county runs high citation volume with harm below the North Carolina line — and a signature in kitchen sanitation, infection control, and a quality-assurance program surveyors find hollow.

19Facilities
79Surveys
417Citations
13.9%IJ rate

Buncombe County — Asheville and the western mountains — runs 19 facilities and 79 surveys at 5.28 deficiencies each. Its 13.9% Immediate-Jeopardy rate sits below Charlotte and Raleigh but well above the national norm. Buncombe's signature isn't the sharp clinical end — it's kitchen sanitation, infection control, and a quality-assurance process that surveyors find missing.

19
Facilities
79
Surveys
5.28
Deficiencies per survey
13.9%
Surveys with IJ
Buncombe carries high citation volume and harm below the North Carolina line — but still well above national norms.
Buncombe carries high citation volume and harm below the North Carolina line — but still well above national norms.
Buncombe at a glance: citation intensity versus the state, top tags, the A–L severity spread, and survey mix.
Buncombe at a glance: citation intensity versus the state, top tags, the A–L severity spread, and survey mix.

The local fingerprint

Kitchen, infection, and a hollow QAPI

Buncombe over-indexes hard on the environmental tags: kitchen sanitation (F812) at 1.86× the state rate, with storage sanitation in 92% of those citations, and infection control (F880) at 1.56×. Its QAPI citations (F867) are especially blunt — every one involves no improvement projects and no systematic analysis. The PASARR and assessment-coordination tag (F644) also spikes at 2.84×. This is a county where the management systems behind care, not just the care itself, draw the surveyor's attention.

Failure modes inside Buncombe's top tags, the cross-tag systems behind them, and its Immediate-Jeopardy citations by tag.
Failure modes inside Buncombe's top tags, the cross-tag systems behind them, and its Immediate-Jeopardy citations by tag.
What Buncombe operators should drill

Run the environmental basics relentlessly: kitchen storage sanitation (F812) and infection-control policy (F880) drive the county's volume. Then stand up a real QAPI program (F867) — documented improvement projects and systematic analysis, not a binder — and tighten PASARR and assessment coordination (F644). Buncombe's risk is systemic, so the fix is a working quality system.

Methodology. Buncombe figures are drawn from 79 county surveys within Clearpol's North Carolina dataset (2018–2026), cross-checked against statewide totals. Over-index ratios compare each tag's share of Buncombe citations to its share statewide.

Fix the system, not just the finding

Clearpol shows Buncombe operators which environmental and QAPI gaps drive their citations — so a working quality system replaces repeat findings.

Book a demoExplore Insight Pro