A violation that caused no actual harm but has the potential for more than minimal harm, repeats a prior violation, and occurred after the department determined the previous violation was corrected, must be investigated within the Earlier of the next onsite survey or 90 calendar days.

• A. Earlier of the next onsite survey or 60 calendar days
• B. Earlier of the next onsite survey or 30 calendar days
• C. Earlier of the next onsite survey or 120 calendar days
• D. Earlier of the next onsite survey or 90 calendar days

Answer: (D)

The key idea here is the timing rule for following up on a repeat violation after a prior issue has already been corrected. When a violation causes no actual harm but could cause more than minimal harm, and it repeats a violation that happened after the department had already determined the previous one was fixed, the investigation must be completed within the earlier of two things: the next onsite survey or 90 calendar days. In other words, you either finish the investigation by the time of the next survey, or, if the survey isn’t scheduled soon, you must complete it by day 90—whichever happens first.

This 90-day limit is built into the rule specifically for repeat violations after correction, ensuring timely oversight even when the risk was potential rather than actual. The other timeframes aren’t correct because they don’t match this particular provision: they would shorten or lengthen the window beyond what the regulation allows for this scenario. So the correct understanding is that the investigation must be concluded by the earlier of the next onsite survey or 90 days.