Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Palm Springs Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors found that LAL mattress pumps for four cognitively impaired residents with orders for LAL therapy were not set according to their weight-based indicators, despite yellow arrows placed on the pumps to show correct settings. Observations showed multiple pumps set to much higher weight or “Firm/Max” settings than indicated, resulting in overinflated surfaces. Interviews with an RN, the SAC, an LVN, and the DON confirmed that staff understood LAL pumps must be set by weight and checked at shift start and after care, yet the assigned LVN acknowledged not re-checking one resident’s pump after wound treatment and likely not checking another resident’s pump that day.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and no decision-making capacity experienced an unwitnessed fall with injury. Facility records, including the SBAR, risk meeting notes, and progress notes, showed no documentation that the resident’s representative was notified, despite facility policy requiring notification of the representative for changes in condition and accidents. The Administrator, SAC, and DON all confirmed that the representative should have been notified at the time of the change in condition and that such notification should have been documented, but it was not.
Two residents with significant medical needs did not have siderails implemented or maintained according to their evaluations and physician orders. In one case, a resident with a history of seizures and ventilator dependence experienced a fall from bed after the siderail order was discontinued and not renewed, despite an evaluation indicating the need for siderails. In another case, a resident's siderail evaluation indicated the need for siderails, but there was a delay in obtaining the necessary physician order. Staff interviews confirmed that facility policy and expectations were not followed in both instances.
The facility did not ensure accurate documentation of controlled medication administration for two residents. In both cases, narcotic pain medications were removed from the medication cart and recorded on the narcotic sheet, but the administration was not documented on the MAR as required by facility policy. Staff interviews confirmed that the expected practice was not followed, resulting in incomplete medication records.
A resident with a history of respiratory failure and tracheostomy tested positive for CRPA, but staff failed to notify the IP or implement contact precautions as required by facility policy. The resident was not placed on appropriate isolation until nearly a month after the positive culture result, despite clear guidelines for immediate action.
The facility failed to service ventilators for eight residents by the due dates, as observed during an unannounced visit. The respiratory therapist confirmed the overdue maintenance and stated he was instructed to focus on blower hours instead. The administrator was unaware of the issue, and the residents involved had conditions requiring ventilator dependence.
The facility failed to follow infection control practices for respiratory equipment, affecting 12 residents. Equipment such as ventilator circuits, BVFs, and oxygen tubing were not changed or dated as per the facility's policy. Observations showed equipment was either undated or overdue for replacement. Staff interviews confirmed that night shift RTs were responsible for changing and dating equipment, but this was not consistently done, leading to deficiencies in infection control.
The facility failed to complete quarterly MDS assessments within the required timeframe for six residents. An interview and record review revealed that the assessments were overdue, with the last assessments conducted on August 4, 2024, and not completed by the November 4, 2024 deadline. The DON confirmed the oversight, which could impact the residents' quality of care and staff awareness of care needs.
The facility failed to ensure proper accountability and administration of controlled medications for several residents. Discrepancies were found between the Controlled Drug Records and Medication Administration Records, with doses signed out but not documented. Additionally, a resident received pain medication not indicated in the physician's order, highlighting a failure to adhere to prescribed orders. These issues were confirmed by the DON and Consultant Pharmacist, indicating deficiencies in pharmaceutical services.
The facility failed to maintain safe food storage and sanitation practices, as observed during a survey. A half-gallon carton of Mocha Mix and a Ziploc bag of shredded carrots lacked use-by-date labels, contrary to facility policy. Additionally, a sherbet container and black residue were found on the floor of the walk-in freezer, indicating inadequate cleaning. The Food Service Assistant and Director acknowledged these lapses in compliance with established procedures.
A facility failed to timely identify and implement trauma-informed care for a resident with PTSD. The resident, with a history of trauma and substance dependence, expressed sadness and a desire to discuss his PTSD. Despite being cognitively intact, there was no evidence that his psychosocial history and psychologist's evaluation were discussed by the IDT, nor was a trauma-informed care plan developed. The Social Service Director admitted to not discussing the psychologist's findings with the IDT, contrary to the facility's policy on trauma-informed care.
A resident received hydrocodone with acetaminophen (Norco) for pain without documented pain assessments before and after administration, as required by the facility's policy. Interviews with an LVN and the DON confirmed the necessity of documenting pain scores to evaluate medication effectiveness. The absence of documentation potentially led to unnecessary or ineffective pain management.
The facility failed to implement proper infection control practices, as a CNA did not wear PPE while caring for a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), and two residents with indwelling medical devices were not placed on EBP. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and implementation of EBP, despite facility policies requiring PPE use for residents with devices like urinary catheters and gastrostomy tubes.
A resident's call light was not within reach, as observed during an interview. The CNA and LVN confirmed the call light should be accessible to prevent falls and ensure assistance. The resident had a pelvic fracture and osteoporosis, requiring easy access to help.
A resident experienced an unwitnessed fall, and the facility failed to conduct a timely assessment or notify the physician. Despite CNAs reporting the incident to the LVN Charge Nurse, no immediate action was taken, and the incident was not documented in the medical record. The facility's policy requires notification and documentation of such events, which was not followed.
A resident with allergies to peanuts and tomatoes was given a tuna sandwich containing tomatoes. Despite informing the nursing staff and having established procedures to check diet cards for allergies, the resident received a meal with an allergen. This indicates a lapse in the facility's process for accommodating food allergies.
Improper Weight-Based Settings of Low Air Loss Mattresses
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain proper use and settings of low air loss (LAL) mattresses for four of six residents reviewed, despite physician orders and facility policy requiring licensed nurses to monitor function, proper setup, and placement. LAL mattresses in the subacute unit were equipped with pumps whose air pressure is set according to resident weight, with yellow arrows placed on each pump by the Subacute Unit Coordinator (SAC) to indicate the correct setting. The facility’s policy on low-air-loss therapy beds states that these beds inflate to specific pressures based on the height and weight of the patient. Surveyors observed multiple instances where the LAL pump settings did not match the indicated weight-based settings. For one resident weighing 117 lbs, the yellow arrow on the pump was placed between 80 and 160 lbs, but the dial was set at 400 lbs until RN 1 adjusted it to align with the arrow. For a second resident weighing 144 lbs, the yellow arrow was between 100 and 150 lbs, but the dial was set at 350 lbs on the “Firm” setting, which the SAC confirmed was incorrect. For a third resident weighing 150 lbs, the yellow arrow was between 80 and 160 lbs, but the dial was set at 400 lbs on the “Max” setting, which the SAC also verified was not correct. For a fourth resident weighing 183 lbs, the yellow arrow was at 200 lbs, but the pump was set at 285 lbs, which LVN 1 acknowledged was incorrect and resulted in an overinflated, hard surface. Interviews confirmed that staff were aware of the requirement to set LAL pumps according to resident weight and to verify settings. RN 1 and the SAC explained that the yellow arrows were placed to guide staff to the correct setting based on weight, and that proper settings help relieve pressure on the skin and minimize the risk of pressure ulcer development. The SAC stated it was her expectation that the assigned LVN check and verify LAL pump settings at the beginning of each shift. LVN 1 stated he checks his residents’ LAL pumps at the beginning and end of his shift and after resident care, and verified he was assigned to one of the residents with an incorrect setting; he reported that he had checked the pump earlier and believed it was correct, and acknowledged he did not re-check the setting after providing wound treatment. LVN 1 also stated he did not think he checked the fourth resident’s mattress setting that day and acknowledged he should have. All four residents had severe cognitive impairment and physician orders for LAL mattresses with licensed nurses to monitor function, proper setup, and placement.
Failure to Notify Resident Representative After Unwitnessed Fall
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a resident’s representative of a change in condition following a fall. The resident, who had a traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage after a motor vehicle accident, was admitted with severe cognitive impairment. A BIMS assessment dated January 17, 2025, showed severe cognitive impairment, and physician orders dated February 5, 2025, documented that the resident did not have capacity to make his own decisions. On February 5, 2026, the Administrator confirmed that the resident’s representative was responsible for making healthcare decisions due to the resident’s severe cognitive impairment. The facility’s policy on Changes in Resident Condition states that the resident’s representative is to be notified when changes in condition occur, including accidents involving the resident that result in injury and may require physician intervention. On May 16, 2025, at 1:10 a.m., an SBAR for change of condition documented that the resident had an unwitnessed fall and was found on the floor next to his bed, with a notation to notify the MD and call the representative in the morning. Risk Meeting Notes from later that morning, attended by the DON, recorded that the resident was status post fall with injury and specifically indicated that the resident representative was not notified. A review of the progress notes following the fall showed no documentation that the representative was notified. In interviews, the Subacute Coordinator and the DON both stated that notification to a resident’s representative should occur at the time of a change of condition and that the nurse should document the date and time of notification on the SBAR and in concurrent progress notes. Both verified that the SBAR, Risk Meeting Notes, and progress notes for this incident did not show that the resident’s representative was notified of the unwitnessed fall.
Failure to Implement and Maintain Siderails as Indicated by Evaluation and Physician Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe environment and adequate supervision to prevent accidents, specifically regarding the use of siderails for two residents with significant medical needs. For one resident with a history of seizures and ventilator dependence, a siderail evaluation conducted on May 24, 2025, indicated the need for siderails as a safety precaution, and a physician order was obtained the same day. However, this order was discontinued the following day and not renewed prior to the resident experiencing a fall from bed on June 2, 2025. Staff interviews and record reviews confirmed that the resident was found on the floor without siderails in place, despite the evaluation indicating their necessity. The Unit Manager and DON both verified that the physician order for siderails was not in effect at the time of the fall, and staff could not explain why the order had been discontinued. For another resident with chronic respiratory failure and ventilator dependence, a siderail evaluation completed on March 13, 2025, indicated the need for siderails. However, there was no physician order for siderails until April 8, 2025, leaving a gap between the evaluation and the implementation of the safety intervention. Staff interviews confirmed that the expectation was for nursing staff to obtain a physician order for siderails immediately following a positive evaluation, but this did not occur in a timely manner for this resident. Facility policy required that nursing staff complete a siderail evaluation, obtain a physician order, and implement siderails when medically necessary. The failure to follow these procedures resulted in residents not having siderails in place as indicated by their assessments, and in one case, directly preceded a fall from bed. Staff interviews consistently acknowledged the expectation to check evaluations, obtain orders, and implement siderails, but these steps were not consistently followed.
Failure to Accurately Document Administration of Controlled Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain accurate reconciliation and documentation of controlled medications administered to two residents. For one resident admitted with a right humerus fracture, physician orders indicated oxycodone was to be administered as needed for moderate to severe pain. However, review of the narcotic sheet and electronic Medication Administration Record (MAR) for May 2025 showed that oxycodone was removed from the medication cart on several occasions, but the administration was not documented on the MAR for multiple dates. Licensed staff confirmed that the expected practice was to sign both the narcotic sheet and the MAR when administering narcotics, but this was not consistently done. Similarly, another resident with a diagnosis including urinary tract infection had an order for acetaminophen-hydrocodone (Norco) as needed for pain. The narcotic sheet indicated that Norco was removed from the medication cart on several dates, but these administrations were not documented on the MAR. Interviews with staff, including the Infection Preventionist and the Director of Nursing, confirmed that facility policy required documentation on both the narcotic sheet and the MAR, which was not followed. The facility's policy on controlled substances outlined the need for immediate and accurate record-keeping, which was not adhered to in these cases.
Failure to Implement Timely Contact Precautions for CRPA-Positive Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement proper infection control precautions in accordance with its policy and procedure when a resident tested positive for carbapenem-resistant pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) on March 28, 2025. The resident, who had a history of respiratory failure with tracheostomy and resistance to carbapenems, was not placed on contact isolation immediately after the positive sputum culture result was received. Although the medical doctor was notified and ordered no antibiotics, there was no documentation that the Infection Preventionist (IP) was informed of the CRPA result at that time. The resident remained without appropriate contact isolation for nearly a month, despite facility policy requiring immediate implementation of contact precautions for CRPA cases. Interviews with staff revealed that the registered nurse who received the culture result did not notify the IP or document the result in the progress notes. The IP only became aware of the CRPA result on April 22, 2025, after which the resident was moved and placed on contact and droplet precautions. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the culture result was received but not reviewed or acted upon until almost a month later. Facility policy, which adheres to CDC guidelines, mandates that residents colonized or infected with CRPA be placed on contact precautions to prevent transmission.
Failure to Service Ventilators on Time
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that ventilators for eight residents were serviced by the due dates indicated on the labels and according to the manufacturer's recommendations. During an unannounced visit, it was observed that the ventilators for these residents had not undergone preventative maintenance (PM) as required. The service due dates for the ventilators had passed, with some being overdue by several months. The respiratory therapist (RT) confirmed that the ventilators had not been serviced and stated that he was instructed to focus on the blower hours (BH) instead of the due dates. The RT indicated that the ventilators should undergo PM yearly to ensure proper functioning and resident safety. However, he was told to consider the ventilators safe if they had not reached 30,000 BH. Despite this, the RT acknowledged that it was his responsibility to ensure the PM was conducted and had requested the maintenance from his supervisor and the respiratory company owner. The administrator (ADM) was unaware of the overdue PM and stated that the RN Sub-acute Coordinator and RT should ensure all ventilators are functioning and have undergone PM. The residents involved had various medical conditions, including anoxic brain damage, respiratory failure with tracheostomy, and dependence on ventilators. The lack of timely maintenance had the potential to increase the risk of infection and improper ventilation for these residents. The operating manual for the ventilators specified that regular maintenance inspections should be carried out at least every 12 months, which was not adhered to in this case.
Infection Control Deficiency in Respiratory Equipment Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its infection control practices for respiratory equipment, affecting 12 out of 14 residents. During an unannounced visit, it was observed that multiple pieces of respiratory equipment, such as ventilator circuits, bacterial viral filters (BVF), heat moisture exchangers (HME), and oxygen tubing, were not changed or dated according to the facility's policy. The respiratory therapist (RT) confirmed that equipment was supposed to be changed on a specific schedule and dated accordingly, but this was not consistently done. Observations revealed that several residents had equipment that was either undated or not changed as per the schedule. For instance, Resident 2 had oxygen tubing dated January 30, 2025, which should have been changed, and Resident 3 had a BVF filter dated January 21, 2025, which was overdue for a change. Similar issues were noted with other residents, where equipment was either undated or had dates indicating they were overdue for replacement. The RT acknowledged these discrepancies and stated that equipment should be dated when changed to ensure adherence to the schedule and maintain infection control standards. Interviews with staff, including a registered nurse who was the Sub-acute Coordinator, confirmed that the night shift RTs were responsible for changing and dating the equipment. The facility's undated policy and procedure documents also indicated that disposable equipment should be labeled with the patient's name and date and changed as scheduled. However, the lack of adherence to these procedures led to the observed deficiencies in infection control practices.
Failure to Timely Complete Quarterly MDS Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the required three-month timeframe for six residents. This deficiency was identified during an interview and record review conducted on December 11, 2024, with the MDS nurse. The MDS nurse confirmed that Resident 57's quarterly assessment was overdue by more than three months. Further review revealed that the quarterly assessments for Residents 14, 38, 28, 30, and 35 were also not completed within the required timeframe, as their last assessments were conducted on August 4, 2024, and should have been completed by November 4, 2024. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the oversight, acknowledging that the quarterly MDS assessments for the six residents were not completed within the 92-day requirement from the last assessment. The facility's policy, revised in October 2023, mandates that nursing homes submit OBRA-required MDS records for all residents in Medicare- or Medicaid-certified beds every quarter unless the resident is no longer in the facility. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the residents' quality of care and the staff's ability to be aware of and address the residents' care needs appropriately.
Controlled Medication Accountability and Administration Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accountability of controlled medications and the appropriate use of pain medications for several residents. The Controlled Drug Records (CDR) for five residents did not reconcile with the Medication Administration Records (MAR), leading to discrepancies in medication administration documentation. For instance, Resident 7 had discrepancies in the administration of oxycodone, with doses signed out but not documented on the MAR. Similar issues were observed with Residents 54, 53, 70, and 68, where doses of controlled medications were signed out but not recorded on the MAR, indicating a lack of proper documentation and potential for medication errors. Additionally, the facility failed to administer medication as ordered by the prescriber for one resident. Resident 70 received a dose of Norco for pain that was not indicated in the physician's order. The order specified the medication for right hand/wrist pain, but the resident was given the medication for back, neck, and hip pain, which was not covered by the existing order. This discrepancy was confirmed by the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) and the Director of Nursing (DON), highlighting a failure to adhere to the prescribed medication orders. The facility's policies and procedures were not followed, as evidenced by the lack of documentation on the MAR and the administration of medication without the appropriate indication. The Consultant Pharmacist and the DON both confirmed the necessity for accurate documentation and adherence to physician orders to ensure resident safety and proper pain management. The facility's failure to document medication administration accurately and to administer medications as ordered by the physician resulted in deficiencies in pharmaceutical services provided to the residents.
Deficiencies in Food Storage and Sanitation Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food preparation and storage practices in the kitchen, as observed during a survey. Specifically, a half-gallon carton of Mocha Mix in the number two reach-in refrigerator was found without a use-by-date label, despite being opened on November 29, 2024. Similarly, a Ziploc bag containing shredded carrots in the number three reach-in refrigerator was dated December 7, 2024, but lacked a use-by-date label. The Food Service Assistant (FSA) acknowledged that both items should have had use-by-date labels, as per the facility's policy. Additionally, the walk-in freezer was found to have a four-ounce orange sherbet container on the floor, along with black residue on the floor and lower part of the wall behind the freezer racks. The FSA admitted that the sherbet should not have been on the floor and that the area should have been cleaned, as she was responsible for cleaning the walk-in freezer twice a month. The Food Service Director confirmed that the Mocha Mix and shredded carrots should have been labeled with the name of the food item, the date prepared/stored, and the use-by-date, and emphasized the importance of daily visual checks for cleanliness in the walk-in freezer.
Failure to Implement Trauma-Informed Care for Resident with PTSD
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely identification and implementation of trauma-informed practices and care planning for a resident with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The resident, who had a history of trauma including abuse and substance dependence, was observed expressing feelings of sadness and a desire to discuss his PTSD. Despite being cognitively intact and having the capacity to make healthcare decisions, there was no documented evidence that the resident's psychosocial history and psychologist's evaluation were discussed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Furthermore, a trauma-informed care plan was not developed for the resident following the psychologist's evaluation. The Social Service Director acknowledged that the resident did not initially verbalize his traumatic history upon admission and admitted to not discussing the psychologist's findings with the IDT. The facility's policy on trauma-informed care emphasizes culturally sensitive and person-centered care, yet this was not adhered to, resulting in the resident's mental and psychosocial needs not being met.
Failure to Document Pain Assessments for Pain Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from unnecessary medications due to inadequate documentation of pain assessments associated with the administration of pain medication. Specifically, a resident had a physician's order for hydrocodone with acetaminophen (Norco) to be administered as needed for moderate to severe pain. However, the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for December 2024 showed that the resident received Norco on several occasions without any documented pain assessment before or after the medication was given. This lack of documentation included the absence of a pain rating scale and pain assessment, which are crucial for evaluating the necessity and effectiveness of the medication. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) and the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed the requirement for pain assessments to be documented in the MAR. The DON emphasized the importance of documenting pain assessments to determine the effectiveness of the medication and to understand whether the resident's pain was managed, improved, or worsened. A review of the facility's pain management policy further supported the need for documentation of pain assessments and responses to pain management interventions. The failure to document these assessments potentially led to unnecessary or ineffective pain management for the resident.
Inadequate Infection Control Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement proper infection control practices, as evidenced by several observations and interviews. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not wear personal protective equipment (PPE) while caring for a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), despite a sign indicating the requirement for PPE. The CNA acknowledged forgetting to wear PPE and recognized the importance of doing so to prevent the spread of germs. Interviews with other staff, including a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) and the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed the expectation that PPE should be worn to protect both residents and staff from infections. Additionally, the facility did not place two residents on EBP who had indwelling medical devices. One resident with a urinary catheter and another with a gastrostomy tube were not on EBP, and there were no signs or isolation carts with PPE outside their rooms. Interviews with CNAs and LVNs revealed a lack of awareness and implementation of EBP for these residents, despite the facility's policy indicating that residents with indwelling medical devices should be on EBP. The Infection Prevention (IP) nurse confirmed that residents with devices such as IVs, gastrostomy tubes, and urinary catheters should be on EBP, with appropriate signage and PPE available. The facility's policy on EBP was reviewed, indicating the need for gown and glove use during high-contact care activities to prevent the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. However, these practices were not consistently followed, leading to potential risks of infection spread.
Call Light Accessibility Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accommodate the needs of a resident when the call light button was not within reach. During an observation and interview, the call light was found hanging on the wall behind the resident's bed, and the resident was unaware of its location. This was confirmed by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), both of whom acknowledged that the call light should be within the resident's reach to ensure they can call for assistance when needed. The resident involved had been admitted with a fracture of the pelvis and age-related osteoporosis, conditions that necessitate easy access to assistance to prevent falls and injuries. The facility's policy requires that call lights be placed within the resident's reach, but this was not adhered to, increasing the risk of harm to the resident.
Failure to Assess and Notify After Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely assessment and notification following an unwitnessed fall involving a resident. On August 15, 2024, a resident experienced an unwitnessed fall, which was discovered by two CNAs who found the resident partially on the floor. Despite the CNAs informing the LVN Charge Nurse about the incident, there was no immediate assessment conducted, and the physician was not notified as required by the facility's policy. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the CNAs reported the incident to the LVN Charge Nurse, who denied being informed of any changes or incidents involving the resident. The CNAs and the Respiratory Therapist who assisted in the situation expected the nurse to assess the resident, but this did not occur. The Registered Nurse and the facility Administrator confirmed that the expectation was for the LVN Charge Nurse to assess the resident and notify the Nursing Supervisor and the physician immediately. The facility's Medical Director confirmed that he did not receive any notification of the fall. A review of the resident's medical record showed no documentation of the incident or notification to the physician. The facility's policy on changes in resident condition mandates that the resident, attending physician, and resident representative be notified of such events, and that changes be documented in the medical record, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Provide Meal Consistent with Resident's Food Allergies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a resident with an alternative meal consistent with the resident's identified food allergies. During an unannounced visit, it was found that a resident with allergies to peanuts and tomatoes was given a tuna sandwich containing tomatoes. The resident informed the nursing staff about the allergy, and the sandwich was replaced. However, this incident indicates a lapse in the facility's process for checking and accommodating food allergies. Interviews with the staff, including a CNA, cook, registered dietician, and dietary supervisor, revealed that the established procedure involves checking the resident's diet card for allergies before providing alternative meals. Despite these procedures, the resident still received a meal containing an allergen. The facility's policy and procedure on diet cards emphasize the importance of ensuring that food items served are consistent with the tray card information, which was not followed in this instance.
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 204 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 1 immediate-jeopardy cases — 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 Palm Springs
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Premier Care Center For Palm Springs | 1.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 32 | 1 |
| Desert Regional Medical Center D/p Snf | 1.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| California Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 2.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 21 | 0 |
| Bayshire Rancho Mirage | 6.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Rancho Mirage Health And Rehabilitation Center | 8.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Palm Springs Healthcare & Rehabilitation 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 July 2026) and official state health department websites.