PruittHealth North Tampa: Uncertified CNA Violation - FL
The worker, identified in inspection documents only as Staff E, appeared on staffing assignment sheets throughout August 2025, listed in a certified nursing assistant position with direct care responsibilities for specific groups of residents. The assignments ran across multiple room ranges and multiple shifts. On August 2, Staff E was assigned one-on-one responsibility with a single resident. On August 7, the assignment covered rooms 501 through 508, along with rooms 313 and 317 through 320. The following day, rooms 501 through 510. The pattern continued, day after day, through August 23, when Staff E was assigned to rooms 401 through 410.
That is more than three weeks of direct care assignments, documented in the facility's own paperwork.
Inspectors arrived on September 24, 2025, responding to a complaint. When they pulled that day's 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. staffing assignment sheet, Staff E's name appeared again, assigned to rooms 505 through 510. This time, someone had drawn a line through the name.
The facility that same day handed inspectors a job description for the certified nursing assistant role, dated September 2016. The document stated that the position requires an active, current, unrestricted CNA certification in the appropriate state, and that the worker must be certified in accordance with the laws of the issuing state. Staff E did not meet that standard.
CNAs are the workers residents see most. They bathe residents, help them to the toilet, reposition those who cannot move themselves, assist with meals, and watch for the small changes, a new bruise, a sudden confusion, a refusal to eat, that can signal something going wrong. The certification requirement exists because those tasks carry real risk when performed without training and oversight.
The inspection cited the violation at a level of minimal harm or potential for actual harm, with few residents affected. That framing reflects the regulatory classification, not a finding that nothing went wrong. It means inspectors could not document a specific injury tied directly to Staff E's assignments. It does not mean the residents in rooms 501 through 510, or 401 through 410, or the single resident receiving one-on-one care on August 2, knew the person providing their daily care lacked the certification the law requires.
What the records do not show is how Staff E came to be assigned to direct resident care in the first place, how the facility's hiring and credentialing process failed to catch the problem, or who, if anyone, was supervising Staff E's work during those three weeks. The inspection report does not answer those questions. The line drawn through Staff E's name on the September 24 assignment sheet suggests someone at the facility knew, by that morning, that something needed to change. The report does not say when that knowledge arrived, or what happened in the days and weeks before it did.
The staffing assignment sheets that documented Staff E's work ran from August 1 through August 23, covering the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift. Whether Staff E worked other shifts, or continued working in any capacity after August 23 and before September 24, the inspection records do not say.
What the records do say is that on at least ten documented days across a single month, residents at PruittHealth North Tampa received direct care from a worker who did not hold the certification the facility's own job description, and state law, required them to have.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Pruitthealth-north Tampa, LLC from 2025-09-24 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: September 19, 2026 · Our methodology
PRUITTHEALTH-NORTH TAMPA, LLC in LUTZ, FL was cited for violations during a health inspection on September 24, 2025.
The assignments ran across multiple room ranges and multiple shifts.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.