Above 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 Life Care Center Of Aurora during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Infection control failures were observed in housekeeping, EBP use, and equipment disinfection. Housekeeping staff cleaned resident rooms and bathrooms without allowing disinfectant to remain wet for the required dwell time, did not always apply disinfectant directly to surfaces, cleaned the toilet in the wrong order, and failed to perform hand hygiene before handling clean mop supplies after toilet cleaning. Nursing staff also provided direct care to residents on EBP without the required gown and glove use, and a vital signs machine was used and moved without being disinfected between residents.
A resident with Alzheimer's dementia, depression, pain, and mobility impairment had a behavior/mood care plan that listed only general interventions such as giving meds, anticipating needs, and discussing routines. RN input showed the resident responded best to personal, unhurried care, privacy, prompt assistance, clean hygiene, and reassurance about oxygen equipment, but these resident-specific interventions were not documented in the care plan.
A resident with acute respiratory failure, CHF, SOB, sleep apnea, and dependence on supplemental O2 did not receive oxygen at the ordered 2 LPM continuously via NC. Staff observed the concentrator set at 4.5 LPM on multiple occasions, while the MAR showed the order as completed each shift. Notes documented weakness, fatigue, and later wheezing, but the record did not show O2 sats below 90% or documentation supporting titration before the flow was changed during the survey process.
Failure to Provide Behavioral Health Services for Residents With Depression: Two residents with depression-related signs and symptoms did not receive documented behavioral health services through the facility process. One resident with stroke-related disability, anxiety, and depression reported escalating sadness, crying, withdrawal, and fear about surgery, while the other resident with chronic pain and cognitive impairment repeatedly stated she felt depressed and would be better off dead. Records showed antidepressant use and depression screening findings, but no documented facility-arranged psych consults or behavioral health referrals.
Medication Labeling and Storage Deficiencies: A survey found that drugs and biologicals were not labeled and stored according to accepted standards in one med cart and one med storage room. A multi-dose Latanoprost bottle, an Incruse Ellipta inhaler, and Ozempic pens were kept in labeled pharmacy boxes, but the individual medications were not labeled with the resident name and date opened. An RN and the DON gave differing explanations about whether the Ozempic pens needed individual labels.
Two residents did not receive routine dental care despite documented oral concerns. One resident had multiple missing and broken teeth, wanted dentures, and had no documented dental referral until the survey, while another resident with Parkinson’s disease had obvious cavities, swollen gums, food debris, and reported oral pain, yet the record showed no dentist visit or oral pain assessment. Care plans called for dental coordination and reporting oral problems, but the EMR lacked evidence that these needs were addressed.
Infection Control Failures in Housekeeping, EBP Use, and Equipment Disinfection
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of infectious diseases. During housekeeping observations, staff did not clean resident rooms in a hygienic manner, did not consistently perform hand hygiene, and did not follow the required disinfectant dwell time for Diversey Virex Tb spray. A housekeeper cleaned a single-occupancy room by spraying disinfectant onto a rag and immediately wiping the dresser/vanity, bedside table, and call light instead of allowing the surface to remain wet. In the bathroom, the same housekeeper sprayed and wiped the sink, countertop, grab bars, toilet pipes, flush handle, and toilet riser without allowing the disinfectant to remain wet for the required five minutes. In another room, a second housekeeper began cleaning the bathroom first and sprayed disinfectant on the toilet, toilet riser, windowsill, bedside table, sink, and countertop. She wiped the sink and surrounding countertop before the required dwell time had elapsed and did not apply disinfectant directly to every surface she was cleaning. She also cleaned the toilet from the bowl rim to the seat and lid rather than from the cleanest area to the dirtiest area. After cleaning the toilet, she did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene before reaching into the mop bucket to wet a mop pad and ring it out, which contaminated the cleaning solution. The housekeeping supervisor stated that cleaning should proceed from the cleanest area to the dirtiest area and that surfaces should remain wet for five minutes, but the observed practices did not follow that process. The facility also failed to ensure staff followed enhanced barrier precautions and disinfected resident vital signs equipment. An unidentified nursing staff member took vital signs for a resident on EBP while wearing gloves but no gown and left without disinfecting the vital signs machine. Other observations showed staff assisting residents on EBP with transfers, bed positioning, brushing teeth, and mechanical lift use without the required gown and glove use. CNA #5 also entered a resident's room on EBP to assess vital signs without performing hand hygiene or donning PPE. In addition, a vital signs machine was observed being wheeled out of a resident's room and placed behind the nurses' station without being disinfected, and another machine was left in the hallway with no disinfectant supplies nearby. The infection preventionist stated that residents with indwelling devices or wounds should be on EBP and that staff should wash hands, wear gown and gloves for direct care, and disinfect the vital signs machine between residents.
Failure to Document Individualized Behavior/Mood Care Plan Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for one resident reviewed for care plans, specifically failing to identify and document individualized, person-centered interventions in the resident's behavior/mood care plan. The resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer's dementia, depression, limited mobility, progressive neurological conditions, and multiple chronic conditions. The April 2026 MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, used a manual wheelchair, had impairment to one side of the upper and lower extremities, reported frequent pain, and had a PHQ-9 score of 12 indicating moderate depression. The behavior/mood care plan, initiated in July 2025 and revised in March 2026, identified the resident as at risk for mood or behavior changes due to Alzheimer's/dementia and documented general interventions such as administering medications, anticipating needs, and consulting the resident about customary routines. However, direct care staff input describing what was effective for this resident was not included. RN #3 stated the resident responded positively to personal, individual care, did not do well when rushed, valued privacy, wanted staff to knock and close the door, and needed clean hygiene and appearance; she also said the resident was reassured when staff responded quickly and checked oxygen tubing and settings to reduce anxiety. The DON stated individualized, person-centered care plans were important, and social services staff helped develop behavior/mood care plans, but the resident-specific interventions described by staff were not documented in the care plan.
Incorrect Supplemental Oxygen Flow Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #77 received supplemental oxygen according to physician orders. Resident #77 had diagnoses including cognitive communication deficits, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, congestive heart failure, shortness of breath, sleep apnea, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. The resident’s care plan called for oxygen therapy, and the April 2026 physician orders initially directed oxygen at 2 LPM continuously via nasal cannula, with documentation every shift. During observations, Resident #77 was repeatedly seen with the nasal cannula in place while the room oxygen concentrator was set at 4.5 LPM on 4/6/26, 4/7/26, 4/8/26, and the morning of 4/9/26. At 12:58 p.m. on 4/9/26, RN #6 entered the room, stated the resident’s flow rate was at 4 LPM, and then turned the concentrator down to 2 LPM before leaving. The resident’s MAR showed the 2 LPM continuous oxygen order was marked completed each shift from 4/1/26 through the morning of 4/9/26, even though the observed flow rate was higher than ordered on multiple days. The record also showed that Resident #77’s oxygen saturations were documented between 93% and 98% each shift during that period. Progress notes described generalized weakness, tiredness, fatigue, and later wheezing, but the documentation did not show oxygen saturation levels below 90% or any record that the oxygen flow rate needed to be titrated up before the order was changed during the survey process. Staff interviews confirmed that oxygen was treated as a medication, that nurses were responsible for checking and adjusting oxygen flow rates, and that a physician order was needed to titrate oxygen. The DON stated the nursing staff should have kept the concentrator at the physician-ordered flow rate and documented communication with the physician regarding titration.
Failure to Provide Behavioral Health Services for Residents With Depression
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure two residents with documented depression-related indicators received appropriate behavioral health treatment and services to attain their highest practicable mental and psychosocial wellbeing. The report states that the facility had a behavior health services policy requiring residents with decreased social interaction, withdrawn or depressive behaviors, or verbalizations indicating distress to be evaluated for possible mental health consultation and referral. Despite this, the record review and interviews showed that Resident #7 and Resident #123 had signs and symptoms of depression, but the facility did not ensure mental health services were offered or arranged through the facility process. Resident #7 was a younger resident with diagnoses including thrombotic stroke, left-sided hemiplegia and hemiparesis, traumatic hemorrhage, depression, and anxiety. His MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment and that he felt down, depressed, and hopeless nearly every day during the look-back period. During interview, he described major losses after his stroke, separation from family, fear about an upcoming cranioplasty, and escalating depression and sadness. He said he had not asked for psychological services because it was difficult for him to ask, but he would be willing to speak with a psychologist or counselor and said the services had never been offered. The record showed antidepressant medication changes and notes about poor mood, crying, withdrawal, and lack of interest in activities, but the EMR did not show physician orders for psychological consultation or documentation that psychological services were offered. Resident #123 had diagnoses including spinal stenosis, cognitive communication deficits, and chronic pain, and her MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment. Her assessments and interviews documented repeated statements that she felt down, depressed, or hopeless, trouble sleeping, and comments that she would be better off dead than at the facility. She also reported that the facility staff had never offered mental health or psychiatric services. The record showed a prior outside physician documented moderate depression and recommended psychiatry follow-up, but the facility record did not show attempts to schedule psychiatry or behavioral health services. Later PHQ-9 assessments continued to show depressive symptoms, yet the record did not reveal new interventions related to the increased scores.
Medication Labeling and Storage Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
Drugs and biologicals were not labeled and stored in accordance with accepted professional principles for one medication administration cart and one medication storage room. On 4/9/26, a first floor medication cart contained a multi-dose bottle of Latanoprost ophthalmic solution and an Incruse Ellipta inhaler inside appropriately labeled pharmacy medication boxes, but the individual medication containers were not labeled with the resident's name or the date the medications were opened. The medications were observed with RN #3 during the surveyor's review. On the second floor, individual boxes of Ozempic pens were stored in the refrigerator in appropriately labeled pharmacy medication boxes, but the Ozempic pens inside each box were not individually labeled with the specific resident name or the date the medications were opened. RN #5 stated the weekly Ozempic pens did not need individual labels because the pharmacy box was labeled with the resident's name. The DON later stated the Ozempic pens did not need to be labeled with a resident's name because they were used only once and discarded, and also stated the Latanoprost and Ellipta inhaler should have been labeled with the resident's name so staff would know who the medication belonged to if separated from the box.
Failure to Provide Routine Dental Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide routine dental services for two residents who had documented oral health concerns. One resident was cognitively intact, required setup or cleanup assistance with oral hygiene, and was observed during the survey with multiple missing teeth and a broken tooth. Although the resident stated she had fallen and broken her teeth two years earlier and wanted dentures, she reported that no one from the facility had discussed dentistry or offered a dental visit since admission. The record also showed that the resident’s oral status had been documented inconsistently on admission and MDS assessments, with missing and broken teeth not accurately recorded. For this resident, the care plan identified risk for oral/dental problems and included monitoring for missing, broken, loose, eroded, or decayed teeth, but the record did not show any care conference documentation or dental referral before the survey. During the survey, the MDS nurse completed an oral exam that identified dental caries and a broken/chipped upper tooth, and the note stated the resident wanted to see the facility’s dental services for dentures. The resident had been readmitted 59 days earlier, and the dental evaluation and discussion occurred during the survey process rather than earlier in the stay. The second resident had Parkinson’s disease, anxiety, and diabetes type 2, was dependent on staff for oral hygiene, and had natural lower teeth with no upper teeth. Survey observations found a black area on a lower tooth, food debris between several teeth, and red, swollen lower gums, and the resident indicated pain by pointing to his mouth and arm. The resident’s representative said oral pain had worsened and that staff had been told he needed a dentist, but no follow-up occurred. The care plan called for coordinating dental care and reporting oral problems, yet the record contained no dentist progress notes showing treatment during the stay and no pain assessments documenting oral pain.
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 491 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 Aurora
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced Health Care Of Aurora | 0.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| The Springs At St. Andrews Village | 0.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 10 | 0 |
| Garden Terrace Alzheimer's Center Of Excellence | 0.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Hampden Hills Post Acute | 1.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| University Heights Care Center | 3.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Life Care Center Of Aurora.
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.