Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around March 2027
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 Heights Care & Rehabilitation Llc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Staff failed to follow required food-handling and hand hygiene practices during a dinner meal service, repeatedly touching ready-to-eat items such as hot dog buns with bare hands after handling meal tickets, countertops, wet towels, trays, plates, utensils, and their clothing, and then assembling meatball sandwiches and other plates placed on trays and in meal carts for residents. Although staff later reported awareness that bread and buns should not be handled with bare hands and that gloves or utensils should be used for ready-to-eat foods, observations showed inconsistent handwashing and lack of glove use while preparing and serving these foods.
Improperly Prepared Soft and Bite Sized Chicken: The facility failed to serve chicken in the IDDSI Level 6 soft and bite sized form required by the resident’s diet order and care plan. Surveyors observed diced chicken on the hot line and on a resident’s plate, but the kitchen manager had not done the fork test before service and was unsure how to perform it; when demonstrated, the chicken did not break apart or flake as required.
Housekeeping staff failed to follow infection control practices while cleaning a resident room, including not observing disinfectant dwell time, not disinfecting high-touch surfaces, and not performing hand hygiene between glove changes. Staff also used a toilet brush on areas outside the toilet bowl and did not clean the bathroom in proper order. In addition, a resident with a urinary catheter was observed with tubing dragging on the floor while moving in a wheelchair, and staff did not correct it.
Two residents did not receive care according to physician orders and professional standards. One resident with a lower extremity venous/arterial ulcer and lymphedema had wound care performed by the ADON and an RN without use of ordered skin prep to the peri-wound area and without application of ABD pads, even though the existing dressing removed from the leg included heavily saturated ABD pads and the CPO specified Dakin’s, skin prep, silver sulfadiazine, adaptic, ABD, and Kerlix every shift. Another resident with chronic pain syndrome, cervical spinal stenosis, and alcoholic polyneuropathy, who was cognitively intact and independent with ADLs, had a standing order for morphine ER 30 mg TID but had multiple scheduled doses not administered when the facility ran out of the medication and did not have the ordered dose available; MAR review and staff interviews confirmed missed doses and lack of timely availability of the prescribed morphine.
Surveyors identified that the facility exceeded the acceptable medication error rate when two residents did not receive ordered medications and documentation was inaccurate. In one case, an LPN did not administer a prescribed topical diclofenac gel for chronic pain because it was not available on the cart, and the medication was not given despite being ordered three times daily. In another case, an LPN discovered an empty insulin lispro vial for a resident with type 1 DM, did not obtain replacement insulin or notify supervisory staff, and omitted the insulin dose while still documenting on the MAR that the insulin was given and recording an incorrect blood glucose value.
A resident with type 1 DM, who was cognitively intact and ordered insulin lispro 20 units SQ before meals with pre-administration blood glucose checks, did not receive the ordered morning insulin dose. After the resident reported having eaten breakfast, an LPN obtained a blood glucose of 205 mg/dl, discovered the insulin vial was empty, and then administered the resident’s other medications but did not obtain insulin from other facility sources, notify a supervisor, or call the pharmacy at that time. The LPN later documented on the MAR that the blood sugar was 125 mg/dl and that the insulin was given, despite it not being administered. A subsequent lunchtime blood glucose by an RN was 191 mg/dl, and documentation that the morning insulin dose was missed was entered only after the issue was raised to facility leadership.
A resident with ALS, anxiety, depression, a trach, and acute respiratory failure, who was cognitively intact, voiced frustration that CNAs assigned to her care could not understand her and requested a CNA who could communicate in English. The concern was not documented in the grievance log or EMR, no grievance was reported to the SSD or NHA, and no staff discussion with the resident occurred after she raised the issue.
A resident with ALS, tracheostomy, and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia was dependent on staff for ADLs and was cognitively intact, but staff did not use effective communication aids when they could not understand her needs. During a meal observation, a CNA ignored the resident’s question about a missing beverage, and no translation device, picture board, or other assistive tool was used. The care plan noted communication frustration, but it did not address the resident’s specific barriers with non-English speaking CNAs, and the EMR lacked documentation of alternative communication methods being used.
A resident with paraplegia and a history of falls, who required maximal assistance with showering, was left alone in the shower room by a CNA while the call light was out of reach. The resident reported feeling scared and unable to call for help, and staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding of supervision requirements for dependent residents.
Multiple residents were involved in verbal and physical altercations, including incidents in the smoking area and dining room, where staff failed to implement timely behavioral interventions, update care plans, or consistently document events and follow-up assessments. Staff interviews revealed gaps in awareness and supervision, and the facility did not ensure adequate protection from abuse or update care plans after incidents.
A resident with a history of aggressive behavior physically assaulted another resident in the smoking area, leading to a deficiency in resident safety. Despite being placed on one-to-one supervision due to his aggressive tendencies, the supervision was discontinued, resulting in the incident. The facility's failure to maintain consistent supervision, despite the known history of aggression, led to the physical abuse of another resident.
A resident with chronic conditions developed a stage 3 pressure ulcer on his left heel. Despite the wound care physician's recommendations to offload the pressure injury, elevate the legs, and float the heels, these interventions were not implemented in the care plan or documented in the physician's orders. Observations and staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and documentation regarding the necessary interventions, leading to the worsening of the pressure injury.
The facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices during wound care for a resident with multiple stage 4 pressure ulcers. The wound care nurse used the same gauze and gloves for different wounds, leading to potential cross-contamination. The nurse admitted to not understanding the need for separate treatment for each wound, and the Director of Nursing confirmed the lapse in protocol.
Improper Bare-Hand Contact With Ready-to-Eat Foods During Meal Service
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failure to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen, specifically related to improper handling of ready-to-eat foods and lack of appropriate glove use. The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations require that food employees do not contact exposed ready-to-eat food with bare hands and instead use suitable utensils or single-use gloves, and that they wash their hands and exposed portions of their arms for at least 20 seconds in a properly equipped handwashing sink. These professional standards were cited as the reference for the expectations that were not met. During continuous observation of the dinner meal service, multiple instances were documented where dietary aides and a cook handled hot dog buns and assembled meatball sandwiches with bare hands, without performing hand hygiene between tasks. One dietary aide repeatedly picked up hot dog buns with bare hands after touching meal tickets, countertops, wet towels, plates, trays, and her clothing, and then assembled meatball sandwiches and other meal plates that were placed on trays or in meal carts for resident service. The cook also adjusted her clothing and wristwatch with bare hands and then handled buns, plates, bowls, and utensils without washing her hands before continuing food preparation and service. Additional observations showed that staff intermittently washed their hands but still handled ready-to-eat items such as hot dog buns with bare hands, and sometimes resumed serving meals after touching their clothes or other non-food surfaces without handwashing. Staff interviews confirmed that dietary staff understood they were not supposed to touch bread or buns with bare hands and that gloves or utensils should be used when handling ready-to-eat foods. The kitchen manager and a dietary aide both stated that staff should wash hands consistently between tasks and use tongs or gloves for handling ready-to-eat foods, and acknowledged that the staff observed should not have handled hot dog buns with bare hands.
Improperly Prepared Soft and Bite Sized Chicken
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents received food prepared in the form required by speech therapy recommendations, physician orders, and the care plan. The deficiency involved soft and bite sized chicken that was supposed to meet IDDSI Level 6 standards, including being no larger than 1.5 cm by 1.5 cm and able to pass the fork pressure test. The facility policy stated that residents must receive foods in the appropriate form as prescribed, and that dietary and nursing staff were responsible for providing therapeutic diets in the appropriate form. During meal service, surveyors observed the soft and bite sized chicken on the hot food holding table and reviewed it with CK #1, who said it was for the soft and bite sized meals. The chicken was approximately 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch in size, and when a plate was assembled for a resident, the diced chicken was covered with au-jus and served. When the kitchen manager was asked to perform a fork test, he said he was not sure how to do it. After the test was demonstrated, the chicken did not break apart or flake, and the kitchen manager then made the chicken pieces smaller. The kitchen manager stated he had not done the fork test before service and later said he relied on prior texture training and knew there was a choking risk associated with an incorrect texture.
Infection Control and Catheter Tubing Handling Failures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an infection control program during housekeeping cleaning of resident rooms and high-touch surfaces. During a continuous observation, Housekeeper #1 cleaned a double-occupancy room while repeatedly changing gloves without performing hand hygiene between glove changes. She sprayed disinfectant on a sink and faucet, then wiped the surfaces only two minutes later even though the product label indicated a three- to five-minute dwell time. She also cleaned overbed tables and a nightstand by spraying the rag rather than the surfaces, and she did not disinfect high-touch areas such as the door knobs, light switches, call light, or bed controller. In the bathroom, Housekeeper #1 used a toilet brush on the toilet seat, underneath the seat, the rim, and the bowl, then wiped the toilet seat, rim, tank, top of the tank, and base with a dry rag without disinfectant. She did not disinfect the bathroom light switch or door knobs, and the toilet was not cleaned in top-to-bottom order. Throughout the room and bathroom cleaning process, she removed gloves and donned clean gloves multiple times without performing hand hygiene. The housekeeping supervisor stated that high-touch areas should be disinfected daily, the toilet brush should only be used inside the toilet bowl, and disinfectant should be sprayed directly on surfaces and left wet for the required dwell time. The facility also failed to ensure Resident #6’s urinary catheter tubing did not touch the floor. Resident #6, who self-propelled in a wheelchair and had a urinary catheter, was observed with tubing hanging and dragging on the floor while moving in the facility, including while going to the dining room. An unidentified staff member followed behind the resident but did not adjust the tubing. A CNA assigned to monitor the resident one-on-one stated he was required to accompany the resident wherever he went, and an LPN stated the catheter tubing should be kept free from dragging on the floor to prevent UTI.
Failure to Follow Wound Care and Pain Medication Orders
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide treatment and care in accordance with physician orders and professional standards of practice for two residents. For one resident with an open wound on the right lower leg, lymphedema, and unsteadiness on feet, the facility did not follow the prescribed wound care orders. The resident was cognitively intact and largely independent with ADLs, and had a documented venous/arterial ulcer on the lower leg. During an observed wound care session, the ADON and an RN performed wound care that did not fully comply with the physician’s written orders for the right lower extremity. During the wound care observation, the ADON removed existing dressings, including an Ace wrap, rolled gauze, and three ABD pads that were saturated with serosanguineous drainage. The ADON then cleansed the wound using gauze soaked in quarter-strength Dakin’s solution and dried it with dry gauze. Silver sulfadiazine was applied to an adaptic dressing and placed on the wound, followed by rolled gauze and tape. However, the ADON did not apply skin prep to the peri-wound area and did not place ABD pads over the adaptic and under the rolled gauze, despite the physician’s order specifying Dakin’s, skin prep, silver sulfadiazine, adaptic, ABD, and Kerlix every shift and as needed. The ADON later acknowledged she had not used the ABD pads as ordered. The second deficiency concerns a resident with chronic pain syndrome, cervical spinal stenosis, and alcoholic polyneuropathy who was cognitively intact and independent with ADLs, and had documented pain during the MDS assessment period. The resident had a standing order for morphine sulfate ER 30 mg by mouth three times daily for chronic pain. Review of the MAR showed the resident did not receive scheduled morphine doses on two days in January and missed an afternoon dose in March. The resident reported not receiving morphine for 24 hours because the facility ran out of the medication and did not order it, and stated this had occurred several times in the past when the facility ran out and did not reorder in time. Nursing documentation on one of the missed March doses indicated the morphine was “waiting on reorder,” but there was no documentation explaining the missed January doses. Staff interviews confirmed that the scheduled morphine dose was unavailable at the time of administration, that only a different strength was present in the Ekit without a corresponding order, and that the resident’s scheduled pain medication was not consistently administered as ordered.
Medication Administration and Documentation Errors Resulting in Elevated Medication Error Rate
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, with surveyors identifying a 7.41% error rate (two errors out of 27 opportunities) during medication administration observations. One error occurred when an LPN prepared to administer morning medications to a resident who had a physician’s order for diclofenac sodium 1% external gel to be applied topically to both upper extremities three times daily for chronic pain. The LPN reported that the diclofenac gel was not available in the medication cart, stated she would reorder it, and then administered the remaining medications without giving the diclofenac. The medication was not documented as given on the MAR and was instead coded as “other” for the morning and afternoon doses, and progress notes confirmed the medication was ordered. The second error involved another resident with a physician’s order for insulin lispro 20 units subcutaneously before meals for type 1 diabetes, with blood glucose to be checked and recorded prior to administration. An LPN checked the resident’s blood sugar, which was 205 mg/dl, and then attempted to prepare insulin lispro from a vial that was found to be empty. The LPN stated she would call the pharmacy for another vial but did not call the pharmacy, notify a supervisor, or check other areas of the facility for insulin at that time. The LPN proceeded to administer the resident’s other medications but did not administer the insulin lispro. Record review showed that for the resident ordered insulin lispro, the MAR documented a blood sugar of 125 mg/dl and indicated that the insulin was given on the date in question, despite the resident’s actual blood sugar being 205 mg/dl and the insulin not being administered as observed. Interviews confirmed that the LPN later stated she had not had time to give the insulin yet. The DON and regional clinical resource stated that nurses were expected to follow the rights of medication administration, not document medications as given if they were not administered, and that insulin and some pain medications could be obtained from the facility’s emergency kit when not available on the cart. These findings collectively demonstrate failures in medication availability, administration, and accurate documentation that resulted in the identified medication errors.
Failure to Administer Ordered Insulin and Inaccurate MAR Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was free from significant medication errors when an ordered dose of insulin lispro was not administered as prescribed. Facility policy required staff to review the MAR, verify the medication against the MAR, and administer medications within 60 minutes of the scheduled time, as well as to observe the resident consuming the medication. Despite this, on the morning in question, the assigned LPN discovered that the insulin lispro vial for a resident was empty and did not obtain a replacement vial, notify a supervisor, or check other areas of the facility for insulin at that time. The resident involved was under 65 years of age, cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14, and had diagnoses including type 1 diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, and asthma. The resident had a physician’s order for insulin lispro 20 units subcutaneously before meals, with blood glucose to be checked and recorded prior to administration. On the morning of the incident, the resident reported having already eaten breakfast. The LPN checked the resident’s blood sugar, which was 205 mg/dl, but later documented on the MAR that the blood sugar was 125 mg/dl and that the insulin lispro was given, even though the insulin was not administered. Observations showed that after finding the insulin vial empty, the LPN proceeded to give the resident’s other medications but omitted the insulin lispro dose. The LPN did not immediately contact the pharmacy, did not inform a supervisor, and did not seek insulin from other facility sources such as the emergency kit. Later that day, another nurse checked the resident’s blood sugar at lunchtime and obtained a reading of 191 mg/dl. A progress note documenting that the morning insulin dose had been missed and that the physician was notified was entered in the record only after the issue was brought to the facility’s attention by surveyors, and the note indicated no adverse reactions were observed.
Failure to Document and Resolve Resident Grievance About Care Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure prompt efforts were made to resolve a resident grievance regarding care preferences. The resident, who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and had diagnoses including ALS, anxiety disorder, depression, tracheostomy, and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, told CNA #1 that she was frustrated because several CNAs assigned to her care could not understand her during care. She stated that she wanted a CNA who could understand English, but staff continued to provide care with CNAs she could not understand, and no staff member discussed the concern with her afterward. Record review showed no entries in the grievance log for the resident’s concern, and no formal or informal grievance was documented regarding her care-related preferences. CNA #1 acknowledged she did not complete a grievance report, did not document the concern in the EMR, and did not inform the grievance official. The SSD stated she had not received any grievance from the resident, and the regional clinical resource said grievances should be reported immediately and resolved within three days, but this did not occur for the resident’s concern.
Failure to Use Effective Communication Aids During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure effective communication for a resident who was dependent on staff for toileting, personal hygiene, and eating and who had diagnoses including ALS, anxiety disorder, depression, tracheostomy, and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. The resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, but reported that several CNAs assigned to her care could not understand her because of their limited English-speaking ability. She stated that because of her medical condition she could not use her hands to help staff understand her needs, and that she became frustrated and angry when her needs were not met in a timely manner. During an observation, a CNA placed the resident’s lunch tray on the bedside table and left the room after the resident asked whether her beverage had been forgotten. The CNA did not respond, and staff passing meal trays were observed speaking to one another in a language other than English while not pausing to acknowledge the resident’s concern. The resident remained immobile due to her condition and was not able to use voice and hand gestures to point toward her needs. The CNA did not use any alternative communication aids, such as a translation device, picture board, or simplified verbal cues. Record review showed the resident’s communication care plan noted frustration with communication due to difficulty understanding some accents and included interventions to support understanding and comfort, monitor satisfaction with communication, and adjust caregiver assignments as appropriate. However, the care plan did not address the resident’s specific communication barriers with non-English speaking staff, and the electronic medical record did not show documentation that staff used alternative communication methods when they could not understand her verbal requests. Staff interviews confirmed that language line devices were available but stored in the speech therapy department, and that staff should have used alternative communication tools, communication boards, or bilingual assistance when communication barriers occurred.
Resident Left Unsupervised During Shower Despite Fall Risk
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when staff failed to provide adequate supervision to a resident with a history of falls and paraplegia during showering. The resident, who was cognitively intact but dependent on staff for toileting, transfers, and showering, was observed being left alone in the shower room by a CNA for several minutes while the CNA left to retrieve bath sheets. During this time, the resident remained seated on a shower chair with the door closed and the call light out of reach. The resident confirmed in an interview that staff often left her alone in the shower room with the door closed to retrieve forgotten items, and that the call light was not accessible to her during these times. She expressed feeling scared and uncomfortable due to her history of falls and inability to call for assistance if needed. The resident's care plan identified her as a fall risk and included interventions such as ensuring the call light was within reach and anticipating her needs. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding of the resident's supervision needs. One CNA stated that dependent residents should not be left unsupervised during showers and that all supplies should be gathered beforehand. Another CNA admitted to leaving the resident alone and not ensuring the call light was accessible, stating she was unaware the resident could not be left alone. The assistant director of nursing and the regional clinical resource initially provided conflicting statements regarding the resident's fall risk and supervision requirements, but later agreed that the resident should not have been left unsupervised.
Failure to Prevent and Address Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect four residents from abuse, including verbal and physical abuse, as evidenced by multiple resident-to-resident altercations. In one incident, two residents engaged in a verbal and physical altercation in the supervised smoking area, where one resident pushed another, resulting in a fall, and attempted to slap him. The care plans for these residents did not reflect timely or adequate interventions to address their behavioral risks, and documentation of the incident was incomplete in the medical records. Additionally, the behavior care plan for one of the residents was not initiated until after a subsequent incident occurred. Another event involved a resident slapping another during an argument in the dining room, causing the victim to lose balance and fall, resulting in redness to the eye. The facility substantiated this as physical abuse, but the care plan for the victim was not updated with new personalized interventions to prevent further abuse. Furthermore, behavior monitoring records did not accurately reflect the occurrence of the incident, and there was a lack of interdisciplinary team documentation and follow-up in the medical record. A third incident occurred during a supervised smoking session, where a resident became agitated, overturned a smoking cart, verbally abused another resident, and then struck her on the hand. The care plan for the victim did not include new interventions after the altercation, and there was no nursing progress note documenting the incident or the RN assessment. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness of special interventions for residents with known behavioral issues, and supervision in the smoking area was inconsistent with facility policy. The facility's process for documenting and care planning after such incidents was found to be lacking, with no formal interdisciplinary documentation and incomplete updates to care plans.
Failure to Protect Resident from Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from physical abuse by another resident, which constitutes a deficiency in ensuring resident safety. The incident occurred when Resident #2, who had a history of aggressive behavior, physically assaulted Resident #1 in the smoking area. Resident #2 became upset when Resident #1 was looking at him, leading to Resident #2 hitting Resident #1 multiple times in the head. This altercation was part of a pattern of aggressive behavior exhibited by Resident #2, who had been involved in multiple verbal and physical altercations during his stay at the facility. Resident #2, who was over 65 years old, had diagnoses including moderate vascular dementia with mood disturbances, alcohol abuse, depression, and insomnia. His cognitive skills were moderately impaired, and he had a history of physical and verbal behaviors directed towards others. Despite being placed on one-to-one supervision due to his aggressive tendencies, this supervision was discontinued when he showed no behaviors, only to be reinstated after the incident with Resident #1. Resident #1, under 65 years old, had a history of traumatic brain injury and dementia, with moderately impaired cognitive skills and no history of aggressive behavior. The facility's policy on abuse prevention required the nursing home administrator to coordinate and implement measures to prevent abuse, including staff training and resident protection during investigations. However, the facility's failure to maintain consistent supervision of Resident #2, despite his known history of aggression, led to the physical abuse of Resident #1. The incident was reported to the police and emergency services, highlighting a lapse in the facility's adherence to its own policies and procedures designed to protect residents from abuse.
Failure to Implement Wound Care Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide the necessary treatment and services to prevent pressure injuries from occurring and worsening for Resident #9. The resident, who was admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and type II diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, developed a stage 3 pressure ulcer on his left heel. Despite the wound care physician's (WCP) recommendations to offload the pressure injury, elevate the resident's legs, and float his heels, these interventions were not implemented in the resident's comprehensive care plan or documented in the physician's orders. Observations revealed that the resident's heels were not floated or offloaded, and his feet were often directly on the mattress or floor, contributing to the worsening of the pressure injury. The facility's skin integrity care plan did not address the resident's actual skin breakdown or provide person-centered interventions to prevent the development and worsening of pressure injuries. The care plan interventions were not updated to include the WCP's recommendations, and the resident's medical record did not document any refusal or non-compliance with the recommended interventions. Interviews with staff, including a certified nurse aide (CNA) and a licensed practical nurse (LPN), indicated a lack of awareness and documentation regarding the resident's pressure injury and the necessary interventions. The director of nursing (DON) confirmed that the resident's stage 3 pressure wound was not addressed in the comprehensive care plan prior to the survey and that the WCP's recommendations were not documented or implemented. The WCP expressed disappointment that the recommended interventions were not in place, despite multiple recommendations to offload the pressure on the left heel and elevate the resident's legs. The updated care plan, created during the survey, still did not include the necessary treatments to offload the wound, elevate feet, and float heels as ordered by the WCP.
Infection Control Lapse During Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program while providing wound care to a resident with multiple stage 4 pressure ulcers. The wound care nurse (WCN) did not follow proper infection control practices, such as using the same piece of gauze to clean multiple wounds and not changing gloves between treating different wounds. This was observed during a wound care session for a resident with pressure ulcers on the right hip and right buttocks. The WCN used the same gauze and gloves for both wounds, which is against standard infection control practices. The WCN admitted to not understanding that each wound should be treated separately to avoid cross-contamination. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the WCN should have used different pieces of clean gauze and changed gloves between treating each wound. The resident involved was cognitively intact and required total assistance with bed mobility and transfers. The deficiency was identified through record review, observations, and interviews with the WCN and DON.
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 500 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 8 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 Denver
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hallmark Nursing Center | 1.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Westwood Post Acute | 2.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Parkview Care Center | 2.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Lakewood Post Acute And Rehabilitation | 2.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Englewood Post Acute And Rehabilitation | 2.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Heights Care & Rehabilitation Llc.
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.