Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around January 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of August 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Heritage Health Care Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with a right heel wound, osteomyelitis, and a history of substance use received PRN Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen and Acetaminophen outside the provider-ordered pain-level parameters. Orders specified Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen only for pain levels 4–10 and Acetaminophen for pain levels 1–3, but MAR review showed both medications were repeatedly administered when documented pain scores were 0, 1, or higher than the ordered range. Facility staff, including an LPN and the DON, acknowledged that medications are required to be administered according to provider orders and that there was no documentation authorizing these out-of-parameter doses.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions and intact cognition repeatedly alleged neglect, racial mistreatment, and mental abuse by staff, including not receiving medications as expected and feeling demeaned by an LPN. These concerns were reported by CNAs and an LPN up the chain of command to the DON, ADON, and Administrator, and the DON acknowledged being aware of at least one allegation and discussing it with others. However, the facility did not document these discussions, did not report several oral allegations of abuse and neglect to the state agency as required, and leadership determined the concerns did not meet their understanding of abuse or neglect despite facility policies mandating immediate reporting of all alleged violations to appropriate authorities.
The facility failed to maintain accurate, consistent, and accessible advance directives and code status orders for multiple residents. One resident had a POLST indicating DNR and selective treatment while an active order listed full code, and the required orange prehospital medical care directive could not be found in the EHR or nursing station binder. Another resident with extensive comorbidities had an Advance Directive Statement Form refusing CPR and defibrillation and specifying other treatment preferences, but the care plan initially lacked any advance directive focus and a later POLST ordered CPR and documented that no advance directive existed. Staff interviews revealed that nurses and CNAs relied on electronic charts and code status books that did not always match, and some staff stated they would proceed with full code when documentation conflicted or was missing, even if this went against resident wishes. Leadership acknowledged that facility policy and state law required correctly completed POLST forms and orange prehospital medical care directives for DNR/DNI status, and that these documents were not consistently completed, updated, or available as required.
Two residents with diabetes on sliding scale insulin orders experienced multiple episodes of blood glucose readings at or above the ordered notification threshold, but staff did not contact the provider as required and did not document any such notifications. For one resident with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and long-term insulin use, the care plan omitted the specific sliding scale and notification parameters, and MAR reviews over several months showed repeated elevated readings without provider notification. For another resident with diabetes and acute kidney failure, physician orders clearly directed staff to call the medical director for blood sugars of 351 mg/dL or higher, yet MARs and progress notes showed very high readings on multiple occasions with no evidence of provider contact. Staff interviews, including with an LPN and the DON, confirmed that these elevated values were out of ordered parameters and that the provider was not notified, contrary to facility policy and recognized diabetes management guidance.
The facility failed to ensure PASARR screenings were accurate, complete, and updated for two residents with mental health and substance use-related conditions. One resident with diabetes, CKD, malnutrition, and documented substance use disorder and anxiety had a hospital-submitted PASRR Level I that omitted anxiety and substance use, and the facility did not generate its own Level I despite internal care plans and MDS data later reflecting an anxiety diagnosis and antianxiety medication orders. Another resident with an active bipolar disorder diagnosis and antipsychotic use had a PASARR form that omitted the bipolar diagnosis and antipsychotic therapy and was only partially completed, even though the MDS and physician orders documented bipolar disorder, hallucinations, and recent antipsychotic use. Staff interviews revealed that the SSD was new to the PASARR system, had not initiated additional PASARR screenings, and acknowledged that a Level II should have been requested for the resident with bipolar disorder, while the DON confirmed staff were previously unaware of requirements to update Level I when a stay would exceed 30 days and that the facility policy did not address this requirement.
Surveyors found that kitchen staff failed to follow facility food safety policies requiring proper labeling and dating of stored food items. During a walkthrough of refrigerators, freezers, and dry storage, multiple items—including grapes, pepperoni, vegan burger patties, cod fish patties, potatoes, bananas, and tortilla chips—were observed without required received dates, open dates, or use-by dates. In interviews, the Food Services Director and Dietary Manager confirmed that policy mandates all stored and opened foods be labeled with these dates and, when repackaged, placed in sealed, labeled containers, but the observed practices did not meet these standards.
Two residents with dementia engaged in a physical altercation over a personal item, resulting in one slapping the other and a subsequent shove. Staff intervened and separated the residents, but documentation showed that not all required notifications were made. Despite existing care plans and staff training on abuse prevention, the incident was recognized as abuse and highlighted a failure to fully protect residents from such events.
A resident with cognitive impairment, mobility limitations, and a history of falls was not provided with adequate supervision or timely staff response, leading to two falls. The resident reported long wait times for assistance, resulting in attempts to transfer independently. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent awareness and implementation of fall prevention interventions, contributing to repeated falls and injuries.
Two residents with severe cognitive impairment were physically abused by another resident with a history of agitation and psychotic disorder. In separate incidents, the aggressive resident struck one resident in a common area and slapped another in their shared room, resulting in emotional distress and minor injury. Both events were witnessed by staff and documented, revealing a failure to prevent resident-to-resident abuse despite existing care plans and interventions.
Pain Medications Administered Outside Ordered Parameters for PRN Use
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in medication administration in which a resident’s drug regimen was not kept free from unnecessary drugs, specifically pain medications given outside provider-ordered parameters. The cognitively intact resident had diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications, a right heel pressure ulcer, and acute osteomyelitis of the right ankle and foot, and had a care plan addressing pain related to a right heel wound as well as risk for negative health outcomes related to continued substance use while in the facility. Provider orders included PRN Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg every four hours as needed for pain intensity 4–10, to be held if the resident was drowsy, and PRN Acetaminophen 325 mg, two tablets every six hours as needed for pain intensity 1–3, not to exceed 3 grams in 24 hours. The facility’s Administration of Medications policy required staff to note the resident’s history and any parameters around drug administration and identified opioids as high-alert medications. Record review showed multiple instances in which nursing staff administered these medications outside the ordered pain-level parameters. The January Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen was given once for a documented pain level of 1, and the February MAR showed it was given for pain levels of 0 and 1, despite the order specifying use only for pain levels 4–10. The January MAR also showed Acetaminophen was administered on several dates when the recorded pain levels were 6, 7, 5, 4, or 0, outside the ordered 1–3 pain range, and similar out-of-parameter administrations occurred in February for pain levels 4 and 5. Interviews with an LPN and the DON confirmed that medications are to be given according to provider orders, that these administrations occurred outside the ordered parameters, and that there was no documentation in the record authorizing administration outside the provider’s orders for the identified dates.
Failure to Report Resident’s Abuse and Neglect Allegations to State Agency
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its abuse and neglect reporting policies and to timely report allegations of neglect to the state agency for one resident. The resident had multiple medical diagnoses, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, urinary retention, benign prostatic hyperplasia, muscle spasm, and morbid obesity due to excess calories. A care plan initiated in February 2024 identified a risk for change in mood or behavior related to medical conditions, with interventions including medications as ordered. A quarterly MDS assessment documented intact cognition with a BIMS score of 15/15 and noted that the resident experienced depressed mood and behavioral symptoms in the days preceding the assessment. The resident’s care plan for risk of change in mood and behavior was revised in February 2025 to note that the resident made untrue statements about receiving medications on time. On a date in February 2026, a behavior progress note documented that the resident told a medication technician he was being neglected and wanted to speak to a nurse immediately. The note indicated the allegation was reported to the DON, who spoke with the resident and instructed staff to provide care with two staff present in the room; however, there was no evidence that this allegation was reported to the state agency. The care plan was later revised to include interventions for two-person care and medication pass. Another behavior progress note in February 2026 recorded that the resident complained of not receiving nighttime medications and accused staff of abusing and neglecting him, and the nurse documented that the ADON was notified and that medications were being administered per physician orders. A separate note the same day indicated that care in pairs was continuing. During interviews, the resident stated that an LPN had inflicted mental abuse on him through prior interactions that made him feel less than a man, and that he experienced increased anxiety and anxiety attacks when aware that this LPN would be on shift. He also reported feeling abused and neglected due to his race and said he had informed the DON but felt nothing was done. CNAs reported that the resident had shared allegations of abuse and neglect with them and that they relayed these concerns to nurses, who responded that they were already aware and would handle the matter; the CNAs were unsure what actions were taken. An LPN stated that allegations of abuse and neglect, including verbal and physical abuse and withholding care, must be reported to the state agency within two hours and that she had reported the resident’s allegations about water restrictions and medications to the ADON, DON, and Administrator, but she was not informed of any subsequent facility actions. The DON stated that all allegations of abuse and neglect, including verbal abuse, were to be reported to the abuse coordinator, and acknowledged that a prior allegation of neglect documented in a June 2024 progress note had not been reported to her, and therefore was not reported to the state agency as required by policy and regulation. Regarding the February 13, 2026 progress note, the DON confirmed that the allegation of neglect had been reported to her but that she did not document any discussion with the resident. The DON, ADON, and Social Services confirmed that a conversation about the allegations occurred but was not documented and that they determined the allegation did not meet their understanding of abuse or neglect and did not require further action, including reporting to the state agency, contrary to facility policy and regulatory requirements. Social Services noted the resident had increased depression and anxiety and did not connect these behaviors with the abuse and neglect allegations. The facility’s policies on abuse identification and on reporting and response required staff to report suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation to leadership and mandated that all alleged violations, whether oral or written, be reported to the facility and appropriate officials within prescribed timeframes, which did not occur in this case. An LPN identified as the alleged perpetrator stated that whether she would report an allegation depended on who made it and the rapport she had with the resident, indicating she would decide what to report based on that relationship. She also stated she could not recall the resident disclosing allegations of abuse or neglect to her or against her and denied that any such allegations would be true based on her character. She did not describe specific actions or behaviors that would constitute abuse or neglect. Overall, the documented allegations by the resident, the staff interviews, and the policy review show that multiple allegations of abuse and neglect were not reported to the state agency and were not handled in accordance with the facility’s written abuse and neglect reporting policies and regulatory requirements.
Failure to Maintain Accurate and Accessible Advance Directives and Code Status Orders
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that valid, consistent, and readily accessible advance directives and medical orders were in place and accurately reflected for multiple residents, resulting in conflicting code status information and missing documentation. For one resident with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of the prostate, acute kidney failure, hypothyroidism, glaucoma, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and muscle weakness, a POLST form documented a choice of no CPR and selective treatment to avoid intensive care and resuscitation efforts. Despite this, an active order in the clinical record listed the resident as full code, and staff were unable to locate the required prehospital medical care directive (orange advance directive form) in either the electronic health record or the nursing station binder at the time of review. The DON later acknowledged that staff were expected to follow the most recent POLST indicating DNR, but this conflicted with the active full code order and the absence of the required orange directive form. Another resident, with a complex medical history including traumatic brain injury, hypertension, GERD, tremor, long-term anticoagulant and insulin use, schizoaffective disorder, Guillain-Barré syndrome, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, dementia with behavioral disturbance, neoplasm, protein-calorie malnutrition, dyspnea, and type 2 diabetes with polyneuropathy, had an order indicating DNR and no feeding tube. An Advance Directive Statement Form documented that this resident did not want CPR or defibrillation in the event of cardiac arrest, did not want a feeding tube, did want IV hydration, wanted adequate pain medication even if it risked depressing respiration, wanted transfer to the hospital if their condition became terminal or irreversible, and would accept blood transfusions but not mechanical ventilation. However, the resident’s care plan initially contained no focus or interventions related to advance directives after admission, and only later was revised to state that the resident had an advance directive for CPR, do not shock, and DNI. A POLST completed later documented “Yes, CPR, attempt resuscitation” and stated that no advance directive existed, directly conflicting with the previously completed Advance Directive Statement Form. Staff interviews further demonstrated inconsistent understanding and implementation of the facility’s advance directive process. Nursing staff reported that code status information should be available in the electronic chart and in a code status book at each nursing station, and that changes in code status should be reflected in both locations. One LPN stated that if an advance directive was incorrect, staff could go against the resident’s wishes, and a CNA reported that if forms and lists did not match the health record, they would proceed with full code until the correct status was confirmed, even though this could result in care against the resident’s wishes. The ADON and DON described a process requiring both a correctly completed POLST and a prehospital medical care directive on orange paper for DNR/DNI status, in accordance with state law and facility policy, and acknowledged that incomplete, conflicting, or inaccessible documents could lead to treatment being performed against a resident’s wishes. The facility’s own policy required review and updating of advance directives at admission, quarterly, and with changes in condition, and required social services to ensure copies were in the medical record with corresponding physician orders, but these expectations were not met for the residents reviewed. Additional findings showed that for another resident, staff could not locate any advance directive or POLST in the electronic record or nursing station binder, despite an active order indicating DNI and do not shock status. The DON confirmed that, given this active order, both a POLST and an orange prehospital medical care directive should have been completed and present in the record, but they were not. The state prehospital medical care directive requirements specified that the DNR document must be on orange paper, signed by the patient, health care provider, and a witness or notary, and displayed visibly for first responders, yet such a valid document was not consistently available for the residents in question. Overall, the facility did not follow its own policy and state requirements to ensure that advance directives and related medical orders were accurately completed, consistently documented, and readily accessible, leading to conflicting and incomplete information regarding residents’ code status and treatment preferences.
Failure to Notify Provider of Critically Elevated Blood Glucose Levels per Insulin Orders
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow physician orders requiring provider notification for abnormal blood glucose levels for two residents with diabetes who were receiving insulin on sliding scale orders. For one resident with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Stage 4 chronic kidney disease, long-term insulin use, a right heel pressure ulcer, and acute osteomyelitis of the right ankle and foot, a provider order dated October 20, 2025 directed staff to notify the provider and administer 12 units of Humalog for glucose levels of 351 mg/dL or greater. The resident’s diabetes care plan, initiated October 21, 2025, instructed staff to obtain blood sugar checks and administer medications as ordered, but did not include the specific sliding scale insulin parameters or the requirement to contact the provider when glucose exceeded 351 mg/dL. Review of the December 2025 MAR showed multiple blood glucose readings at or above 351 mg/dL on several dates, with no documentation that the provider was notified as ordered. Further review of the same resident’s records showed that in January 2026 and February 2026, blood glucose levels again reached 351 mg/dL or greater on multiple dates, triggering the order to administer 12 units of Humalog and notify the provider. However, the clinical record contained no documentation that the provider was contacted for any of these elevated readings. The admission MDS indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and received daily insulin therapy. Interviews with facility staff, including a CNA, the RD, an LPN, and the DON, confirmed that staff understood that elevated blood glucose levels and sliding scale orders requiring provider notification must be reported to the provider, and the DON acknowledged that the provider should have been contacted for each instance and that no documentation of such notifications could be found. For a second resident re-admitted with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, long-term insulin use, and acute kidney failure, a physician order dated November 28, 2025, and again on December 5, 2025, specified Humalog insulin to be given subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime per a sliding scale, with instructions that for blood glucose levels of 351 mg/dL or greater, 10 units of insulin should be administered and the medical director called. Review of the December 2025 MAR showed multiple blood glucose readings above 351 mg/dL on several dates, and a February 2026 MAR entry showed a blood sugar of 449 mg/dL, with no evidence that the physician was notified on any of these occasions. Progress notes from December 2025 through January 2026 also lacked documentation of provider notification when blood sugars exceeded 351 mg/dL. Interviews with an LPN and the DON confirmed that the resident’s blood sugars were very high on the identified dates and that the provider was not notified, despite facility policy requiring orders to be followed and documentation to be consistent with professional standards and guidance indicating that persistent elevated readings above the ordered sliding scale should be communicated to the provider.
Failure to Complete and Update Accurate PASARR Screenings for Residents With Mental Health Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) screenings and referrals were accurate, complete, and submitted according to professional standards for two residents. For one resident with diagnoses including long-term insulin use, Type 2 diabetes, stage 4 chronic kidney disease, and malnutrition, the hospital-submitted PASRR Level I did not reflect the resident’s history of anxiety or substance use disorder. The facility did not generate its own PASRR Level I, despite internal documentation identifying substance use disorder and elopement risk, and a mood/behavior care plan that referenced risk for mood or behavior changes. The admission MDS showed moderately impaired cognition but no history of anxiety or antianxiety medication use, even though the resident later had an order for an antianxiety medication and a quarterly MDS listed an active anxiety disorder diagnosis. For the second resident, who had an active diagnosis of bipolar disorder, the care plan documented the use of antipsychotic medications related to this diagnosis. However, the PASARR form completed for this resident did not include the bipolar disorder diagnosis or any evidence of ordered antipsychotic medication, and only three of the five PASARR review pages were completed. Subsequent clinical documentation, including a physician’s order for olanzapine for bipolar disorder and behaviors such as hallucinations and repeated requests for assistance, as well as a quarterly MDS indicating bipolar disorder and recent antipsychotic use, demonstrated that the PASARR information was incomplete and inconsistent with the resident’s actual condition and treatment. Interviews with facility staff further demonstrated gaps in the PASARR process. The Activities Director stated that a correct PASARR helps staff develop appropriate interventions but acknowledged reliance on her own assessment when the PASARR is inaccurate. The Social Services Director reported being new to the PASARR portal, lacking access for a period, and not having completed additional PASARR level screenings since assuming the role, despite acknowledging that a Level II should have been submitted for the resident with bipolar disorder once it was clear the stay would exceed 30 days. The DON confirmed that social services is responsible for PASARR completion, that staff were previously unaware of requirements such as updating Level I when a stay is expected to exceed 30 days, and that the diagnoses, care plans, and PASARR information for the residents did not match. The facility’s PASARR policy also lacked language addressing the requirement to update a Level I when an individual’s stay will exceed 30 days, as specified in the state Medicaid policy manual.
Failure to Label and Date Stored Food Items per Facility Policy
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s food storage practices based on observations in the kitchen refrigerators, freezers, and dry storage areas. During an inspection of Refrigerator #1, an original package of grapes was found without any received date, opened date, or use-by date. In Freezer #1, an original package of pepperoni was labeled only with a received date of September 5, 2025, but lacked an opened date and use-by date. In the same freezer, an opened original package of vegan burger patties, received on January 7, 2026, had no open date or use-by date, and an opened original package of cod fish patties had no received date, opened date, or use-by date. In the dry storage area, an original box of potatoes, a box of bananas, and an original bag of tortilla chips were all found without any received dates, and the tortilla chips also lacked an opened date and use-by date. In interviews following these observations, the Food Services Director and the Dietary Manager & Director confirmed that facility policy requires all items stored in the refrigerator, freezer, and dry storage to be labeled with a received date, open date, and, when applicable, a use-by date, in a manner accessible to staff. They stated that opened items kept in original packaging are expected to be placed in sealable containers or packages and labeled with the required dates, and that fresh produce boxes must retain the received date and be checked daily for wholesomeness. The facility’s written “Food Safety” policy, last reviewed May 1, 2025, further documented that pre-packaged food transferred to new containers must be labeled with contents and date, that received food must be dated if not already indicated, that each item in multi-item boxes must be individually dated, and that opened packages must be resealed tightly and labeled with a use-by date when applicable. The observed lack of required labeling and dating on multiple food items demonstrated noncompliance with these established policies and professional standards for food storage.
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse During Roommate Altercation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect the rights of two residents to be free from abuse, as evidenced by an altercation between two roommates. One resident, who had diagnoses including dementia and severely impaired cognition, was involved in a physical altercation with her roommate over a plastic flower. During the incident, one resident slapped the other on the face, and the other responded by shoving her roommate's shoulder. Staff intervened and separated the residents, and a skin assessment was completed with no injuries noted. Clinical documentation and staff interviews confirmed that the altercation was witnessed by staff, who heard a commotion and observed the physical exchange. The residents were separated, and notifications were made to the DON, administrator, and provider. However, the behavioral progress note indicated that the resident's representative and case manager were not notified of the incident. Both residents had care plans indicating a potential for verbal aggression related to dementia, with interventions to assess and anticipate needs, but the altercation still occurred. Staff interviews revealed that the incident was recognized as a form of abuse, with both the LPN and Medication Technician stating that physical contact such as slapping or pushing constitutes abuse. The facility's policies on abuse prevention and resident rights were reviewed, confirming the expectation to prevent all types of abuse. Despite these policies and staff training, the incident occurred, resulting in a failure to fully protect residents from abuse as required.
Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision Resulting in Resident Falls
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with multiple diagnoses, including moderate cognitive impairment, osteoporosis, and dementia, was not provided with adequate supervision to prevent falls. The resident had a documented history of falls, impaired mobility, and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) and transfers. Despite these needs, the care plan interventions prior to the falls primarily included having the call light within reach, staff assistance for transfers and toileting, and the use of non-slip socks or shoes during mobility. However, the resident experienced two falls within a short period, one in the bathroom while attempting to transfer from the wheelchair without assistance and another after falling asleep in the wheelchair and sliding to the floor. Documentation and staff interviews revealed that the resident had reported using the call light for assistance but experienced significant delays in staff response, sometimes waiting an hour or more. The resident stated that due to these delays, he attempted to perform tasks independently, leading to falls. Staff interviews indicated inconsistent awareness of the resident's fall risk status and interventions, with one CNA unaware that the resident was a fall risk prior to the incidents and noting the absence of a yellow armband, which was supposed to indicate fall risk. The care plan and interventions were not consistently communicated or implemented among staff, and there was a lack of timely and effective supervision tailored to the resident's needs. The facility's policy required providing an environment free from accident hazards and adequate supervision to prevent avoidable accidents. Despite this, the resident's increased weakness, cognitive impairment, and history of falls were not sufficiently addressed through effective supervision or timely staff response. The lack of prompt assistance and inconsistent implementation of fall prevention interventions contributed to the resident's repeated falls and subsequent injuries, including compression fractures and increased back pain.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect two residents from physical abuse by another resident, resulting in two separate incidents of resident-to-resident physical altercations. In the first incident, a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of agitation and psychotic disorder initiated a verbal altercation with another cognitively impaired resident in a common area. Despite staff presence, the aggressive resident struck the other on the back of the head, an act witnessed by staff. The victim was left teary-eyed but did not sustain physical injuries. The aggressive resident had a recent reduction in antipsychotic medication, which was later increased after the incident due to a return of behavioral issues. In the second incident, the same aggressive resident was involved in a physical altercation with a different roommate, also diagnosed with severe dementia and behavioral disturbances. The altercation occurred in their shared room, where the aggressive resident slapped the roommate on the face, resulting in visible redness and emotional distress. The aggressive resident claimed provocation, but the victim denied any physical aggression. Staff responded to the incident after hearing a scream and found the victim holding her face and visibly upset. The incident was documented, and the residents were separated immediately after. Both incidents were substantiated or under investigation by the facility, with staff interviews confirming the aggressive resident's history of agitation, confrontational behavior, and recent emotional distress related to personal matters. The facility's policy prohibits all forms of abuse, including resident-to-resident abuse, but the interventions in place failed to prevent these incidents. The events were witnessed by staff, and the facility's documentation confirmed the occurrence of physical abuse between residents.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 11 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Globe
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haven Of Globe | 0.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 11 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Heritage Health Care Center.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.