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 Blue Palms Health And Rehabilitation Center At Fle during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two residents with intact cognition and significant mobility and incontinence needs reported long delays in call light response and assistance with toileting and incontinence care, sometimes waiting hours for help and occasionally attempting self‑care due to staff not responding. Grievance forms documented concerns about difficulty obtaining CNA assistance and delayed changing, but the written resolutions focused on unrelated dining room restrictions or staff education and stated the residents were satisfied, even though both residents later reported that no one had discussed the grievance outcomes with them and one denied ever going to the dining room. A family member reported additional unaddressed concerns about soiled clothing and unanswered call lights that were not reflected in the grievance log. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding of the grievance process, and documentation and follow‑up did not align with the facility’s written grievance policy requiring thorough investigation, tracking, and written decisions communicated to residents.
The facility did not adhere to its policy on annual abuse training for staff, as evidenced by two staff members not completing the required training within the stipulated timeframe. The HR Manager confirmed the lack of a system to ensure compliance, and the DON acknowledged the policy should have been followed.
A facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and monitor assistive devices, leading to a resident's unwitnessed fall and serious injury. The care plan was not updated after the first fall, and the overinflated air mattress was not properly checked, contributing to the incident.
The facility failed to implement an effective infection prevention and control program, leading to multiple deficiencies. A resident diagnosed with C-Diff did not have timely contact precautions, and staff were observed not using PPE correctly. Additionally, proper hand hygiene was not ensured for residents before dining, and therapy dogs were allowed in rooms with residents on isolation precautions. Interviews revealed inconsistent practices and a lack of adherence to infection control protocols.
The facility failed to provide sufficient staff, resulting in significant delays in meal service and call light response. Residents on the second floor experienced prolonged waiting times for meals, with some waiting over an hour. Additionally, call lights were not promptly addressed, leaving residents without necessary assistance. Staff interviews confirmed that the current staffing levels were inadequate to meet the residents' needs.
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in the presence of small flying insects in three resident rooms. Observations included insects on residents' water cups, trash cans, plates, and beds. Interviews revealed that staff were aware of the issue but had not effectively addressed it, and the pest log showed no evidence of reported insects or related work orders.
A resident with multiple diagnoses reported feeling unwell and experiencing a sensation of her skin crawling, which was communicated to staff and her POA. Despite noticeable changes in her condition, such as decreased appetite and increased depression, staff failed to take appropriate action or notify medical personnel in a timely manner. The facility did not adhere to its policy on Notification of Changes.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple physical ailments experienced two unwitnessed falls, one resulting in a nondisplaced fracture of the second cervical vertebra. The first fall was not reported to the appropriate agencies, violating facility policy. The care plan was not updated after the first fall and was only revised after the second fall, which did not result in new injuries.
The facility failed to develop and implement care plans for two residents, one with severe-profound hearing loss and another with a high fall risk. The lack of appropriate care plans and interventions led to deficiencies in addressing the residents' needs, as confirmed by staff interviews and record reviews.
The facility failed to provide adequate ADL assistance for personal hygiene for two residents, who were observed with unwanted facial hair despite expressing a preference for a clear face. There were no care plans in place to address their needs, and staff were unaware of their preferences.
The facility failed to ensure an order was in place for pressure-relieving boots for a resident and did not follow up on an order for a swallow test for another resident. Observations and interviews revealed that the boots were used without a physician's order, and there was a delay in therapy evaluations due to poor communication during morning meetings.
The facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice related to oxygen therapy for a resident. Observations revealed the resident was receiving oxygen without a physician's order, and the care plan did not include any interventions related to oxygen therapy. Staff confirmed the lack of a physician order, and the facility's policy on oxygen administration was not followed.
The facility failed to properly store and secure medications, with a resident found with unlabeled and unauthorized medications at the bedside and an unlocked medication cart left unattended in a resident hall. The responsible RN admitted to forgetting to secure the cart due to being busy.
The facility failed to inform residents that signing the arbitration agreement was optional, leading three residents with intact cognition to unknowingly sign away their rights to seek legal action. The arbitration agreement form did not explicitly state that signing was optional, and the Admissions Coordinator confirmed this omission.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment in four resident rooms, with observations of dirt, dust, stains, and insects. Residents reported seeing insects in their rooms and on their drinking cups. Housekeeping staff acknowledged the issues, and the Housekeeping Manager admitted to problems with caulking and infrequent use of showers. An LPN confirmed the presence of flying insects throughout the building. Additionally, another resident room had long scrape marks on the wall and cracked baseboards.
Failure to Properly Investigate and Communicate Grievance Resolutions for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its grievance policy and to appropriately receive, investigate, document, and communicate grievance resolutions for two cognitively intact residents. The Social Services Director (SSD) described a process in which residents obtain grievance forms from a pamphlet holder, submit them to SSD, and SSD then copies, logs, and routes them to the appropriate department for investigation and resolution, with follow‑up in three to five days. However, an LPN who had been working at the facility for a few weeks did not know the facility’s grievance process and only assumed a form was available somewhere. The facility’s written policy designated a Grievance Officer responsible for tracking grievances through conclusion, leading investigations, keeping residents apprised of progress, and issuing written grievance decisions that include specific required elements. One resident, admitted with multiple mobility‑related diagnoses including a left patella fracture, muscle wasting, gait abnormalities, and a BIMS score of 15, had care plans indicating a need for assistance with ADLs and toileting and a risk for falls, with interventions to assist with all ADLs and toileting and to use the call light for assistance. This resident reported long waits for CNAs to respond to call lights and stated they sometimes went to the bathroom without assistance. A grievance form completed by the Housekeeping Director documented that the resident stated it was hard to get a CNA to help them to the bathroom, but the written “action taken” and “final resolution” on the form focused on the dining room being closed due to an RSV outbreak and indicated the resident was satisfied. The resident and a family member later stated the resident had never been to or wanted to go to the dining room, did not leave the bed except for therapy, and that no one had come to discuss the grievance resolution with them, contradicting the grievance form’s notation that the resident was satisfied. The SSD stated the resident had wanted to go to the lunchroom bathroom and that SSD had explained they could not due to RSV, and also stated there was no concern about the resident’s memory because of the BIMS score of 15. The same resident’s family member reported multiple issues, including finding the resident’s pajamas soiled and call lights not being attended, and stated the facility would say they would file a grievance but nothing would be done. The family member specifically believed there should have been a grievance filed for an incident on a particular date, but review of the grievance log showed no grievances for that date or throughout the resident’s stay other than the one about needing CNA assistance to the bathroom. The Housekeeping Director confirmed that the resident had complained about long waits for call light response for bathroom assistance during angel rounds and did not know where the dining room portion of the grievance form came from, and also stated they did not speak to residents about resolutions. The DON stated that, regardless of which department head did angel rounds, SSD was to conduct the resolution, and that only the administrator or designee needed to sign the grievance, while SSD stated there was no section for other department heads to sign and that SSD always conducted follow‑ups after department heads resolved grievances. Another resident, admitted with polyarthritis, morbid obesity, anxiety, sleep apnea, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, chronic pain syndrome, and a BIMS score of 15, had care plans indicating risk for functional decline in mobility and self‑care, with an intervention to encourage use of the call light, and risk for complications related to bowel and/or bladder incontinence, with an intervention to provide incontinence care with each episode. This resident had a grievance form stating they voiced concern about not getting changed in a timely manner, with the documented action that staff were educated on answering call lights timely and a final resolution stating the resident was satisfied, signed off by SSD. In interview, the resident reported waiting two and a half hours for a brief change on one night and an hour and a half on another night, with staff coming in to turn off the call light and saying they would be right back, and believed there might be an issue with night staffing. During the interview, SSD entered the room and asked if the resident needed anything; after SSD left, the resident stated they had never seen SSD before and that SSD had not come in to discuss the grievance resolution, and they did not know what was done with the follow‑up or receive the form back. These accounts show that the facility did not consistently follow its own grievance policy requirements for investigation, documentation, and communication of written grievance decisions to residents.
Failure to Implement Annual Abuse Training Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its written policy on resident abuse concerning annual abuse, neglect, and exploitation training for two staff members. Staff B, hired in 2001, last completed the required training in September 2022, while Staff C, hired in October 2022, also completed the training on their hiring date, exceeding the annual requirement. An interview with the Human Resources Manager confirmed the absence of written evidence for the completion of annual abuse training for these staff members and acknowledged the lack of an effective system to ensure compliance with the training requirement. The facility's abuse policy, dated October 2022, mandates annual education for existing staff through planned in-services. This policy requirement was not met for Staff B and Staff C, as confirmed by the Director of Nursing during an interview. The deficiency was identified during a staff record review, highlighting the facility's failure to adhere to its current abuse policy.
Failure to Prevent Falls and Monitor Assistive Devices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent an unwitnessed fall that resulted in serious bodily injury for a dependent resident. The resident, who had a history of falls and severe cognitive impairment, was found on the floor next to her bed on two separate occasions. The first fall resulted in a nondisplaced fracture of the second cervical vertebra, and the second fall occurred despite the implementation of some preventive measures such as fall mats and 15-minute checks. The resident's care plan was not updated after the first fall, which led to a delay in implementing necessary interventions. The air mattress used by the resident was overinflated and not properly monitored by the staff, contributing to the resident sliding off the bed. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the air mattress was likely a contributing factor to the fall and that there was no documentation or policy in place for checking the air mattresses. Interviews with staff revealed that there was a lack of communication and proper monitoring of the resident's condition and the equipment used. The DON admitted that the care plan was not updated promptly and that the facility did not have a policy related to checking air mattresses. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision and properly monitor assistive devices directly led to the resident's injury and subsequent falls.
Infection Control Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement an effective infection prevention and control program, leading to multiple deficiencies. One resident diagnosed with Clostridioides difficile (C-Diff) did not have a contact precautions sign displayed timely, and staff were observed entering and exiting the room without donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). The resident's positive C-Diff lab results were reported to a registered nurse, but the resident was not placed on contact precautions until the following day. Staff members were observed not performing hand hygiene and not using PPE correctly when entering rooms with contact precautions, including rooms with residents diagnosed with C-Diff and MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus). Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and inconsistent practices regarding the use of PPE and hand hygiene for residents on contact precautions. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene for residents before dining. Observations over three days showed that staff did not offer or assist residents with hand hygiene before meals. Staff members, including CNAs and the Director of Nursing (DON), were observed assisting multiple residents with their meals without performing hand hygiene between residents. This included instances where staff used the same hand to assist different residents without sanitizing in between. Interviews with staff indicated a lack of adherence to hand hygiene protocols and inconsistent practices in maintaining infection control standards. The facility also failed to manage the presence of therapy dogs in rooms with residents on isolation precautions. A dog handler was observed entering a resident's room with a diagnosis of MRSA without regard to the isolation kit and sign on the door. The therapy dog physically interacted with the resident and then entered another resident's room. Interviews with staff, including the DON and Activities Director, revealed that therapy dogs should not enter isolation rooms, and there was a lack of clear communication and protocols regarding the presence of therapy dogs in such rooms. The facility's policies on infection control and hand hygiene were not consistently followed, leading to multiple deficiencies in infection prevention and control practices.
Inadequate Staffing Leads to Delays in Meal Service and Call Light Response
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet the needs of residents, particularly during meal times and in responding to call lights. Observations revealed that residents on the second floor experienced significant delays in receiving their meals. For instance, Resident #32 waited approximately one hour and twenty minutes to receive her lunch tray, and Resident #54 waited one and a half hours for breakfast. Staff interviews confirmed that there were not enough CNAs to assist all residents in a timely manner, leading to prolonged waiting times for meal assistance. Hospice staff, who were not familiar with the residents' needs, were observed stepping in to help due to the shortage of facility staff. Additionally, the facility failed to respond promptly to call lights. Resident #20 activated his call light at 12:09 p.m., but it was not addressed until 12:27 p.m., and even then, the CNA turned off the light without providing the needed assistance. The resident had to reactivate the call light and wait further before being attended to. Interviews with staff indicated that during meal times, there were no staff members available to respond to call lights as they were all occupied with assisting residents with meals. The facility's policies and staffing levels were found to be inadequate in meeting the residents' needs. The Staffing Coordinator admitted that staffing numbers were based on a calculation sheet rather than residents' acuity. The Director of Nursing and other staff acknowledged that the current staffing levels were insufficient, especially during meal times, leading to delays in meal service and response to call lights. The facility's failure to provide adequate staffing resulted in residents waiting excessively for meals and assistance, compromising their care and well-being.
Failure to Maintain Effective Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, as evidenced by the presence of small flying insects in three resident rooms (212, 216, and 218) on one of two floors. Observations were made of these insects on residents' water cups, trash cans, plates, and beds. One resident reported seeing a cockroach in the bathroom and mentioned that the cleaning could be better. Interviews with housekeeping staff revealed that they were unaware of the insect issue, and the Housekeeping Manager stated that no one had reported the problem to her. The facility's pest control contractor visits weekly, but the issue persisted due to infrequent use of showers and potential drain problems. The pest log showed no evidence of reported insects or related work orders or treatments. Further interviews with staff, including an LPN/Unit Manager and the Director of Facilities, confirmed that the issue of small flying insects was known but not effectively addressed. The LPN/Unit Manager acknowledged that insects should not be present on residents' drinking cups or in their spaces and noted that maintenance had been informed but had not resolved the issue. The Director of Facilities mentioned that the pest control contractor had visited the previous week but could not find a breeding place for the insects. The facility's policy on maintaining a safe and sanitary environment was not upheld, as evidenced by the presence of pests and the lack of documented pest control measures.
Failure to Address Change in Resident's Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a change in condition was addressed for a resident diagnosed with cerebral infarction, unspecified atrial fibrillation, dysphagia, and needing assistance with personal care. The resident reported feeling unwell and experiencing a sensation of her skin crawling, which she had communicated to the staff and her power of attorney (POA). Despite these reports, there was no documented follow-up or assessment of her condition until much later. Interviews with various staff members, including a CNA, Food Service Coordinator, and RN, revealed that they had noticed changes in the resident's condition, such as decreased appetite and increased depression, but failed to take appropriate action or notify the necessary medical personnel in a timely manner. The POA also reported a noticeable decline in the resident's condition following a move within the facility, which had not been adequately addressed by the staff. The resident's concerns were not documented, and no SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) or Change in Condition forms were completed. The LPN/Unit Manager confirmed that the resident had experienced a change in condition related to her blood pressure over the weekend, but there was insufficient follow-up until the day of the interview. The facility's policy on Notification of Changes was not adhered to, resulting in a failure to promptly inform the resident, consult the physician, and notify the resident's representative of the change in condition.
Failure to Report Serious Injury from Unwitnessed Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an unwitnessed fall that resulted in a serious bodily injury for a resident. The resident, who had a history of severe cognitive impairment and multiple physical ailments, was found on the floor next to her bed on two separate occasions. The first fall resulted in a nondisplaced fracture of the second cervical vertebra, but this incident was not reported to the appropriate agencies as required by policy. The second fall, which did not result in any new injuries, was reported only after a family member threatened to call the State Agency. The resident was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including a nondisplaced fracture of the second cervical vertebra, dementia, and a history of falls. The resident was dependent on staff for self-care and mobility and had a severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 6 out of 15. The resident's care plan included various interventions to prevent falls, but these were not updated after the first fall that resulted in a serious injury. The care plan was only revised after the second fall. Interviews with staff revealed that the air mattress used by the resident may have been overinflated, potentially contributing to the fall. The Director of Nursing admitted that the air mattress was replaced after the first fall but did not ensure that the incident was reported. The facility's policy on abuse prevention and prohibition clearly states that incidents resulting in serious bodily injury must be reported within two hours, but this protocol was not followed in the case of the first fall.
Failure to Implement Care Plans for Hearing Impairment and Fall Risk
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #23, who had severe-profound hearing loss, was observed without hearing aids and unable to communicate effectively. Despite an audiology report recommending amplification and a progress note indicating the hearing aids were lost, no care plan or interventions were in place to address the resident's hearing impairment. Staff members were unaware of the resident's hearing issues, and attempts to communicate with the resident were ineffective and inappropriate, as observed in the dining room where a staff member had to yell into the resident's ear multiple times. Resident #670, who had a high fall risk score, experienced a fall in the facility. The resident's fall risk was documented in the Fall Risk Evaluation, but no care plan was initiated to address this risk until after the fall occurred. The resident's baseline care plan did not indicate a fall risk, and the comprehensive care plan for fall risk was only put in place the day after the fall. Interviews with staff confirmed that a fall risk care plan should have been in place prior to the incident, but it was not. The facility's policies on comprehensive care plans, hearing and vision services, and fall prevention were not followed. The policies required the development and implementation of care plans based on comprehensive assessments, but these were not adhered to for the two residents. The lack of appropriate care plans and interventions led to deficiencies in addressing the residents' needs, as confirmed by staff interviews and record reviews.
Failure to Provide Adequate ADL Assistance for Personal Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) for two residents, specifically related to personal hygiene. Resident #122 was observed on two occasions with white facial hair on her chin, despite expressing a preference for a clear face. The resident's medical records indicated a need for assistance with personal care, but there was no care plan in place to address this need. Interviews with the resident and staff confirmed that the resident had not been offered assistance with removing the facial hair, and the staff were unaware of the resident's preference and need for this specific ADL assistance. Similarly, Resident #123 was observed with white facial hair on her chin on two separate occasions. The resident expressed a desire to have the facial hair plucked and mentioned that she could do it herself if provided with a mirror and tweezers. Despite being cognitively intact and receiving occupational therapy for personal care needs, there was no care plan in place to address her ADL needs related to facial hair. Interviews with the resident, staff, and the Director of Rehabilitation revealed a lack of communication and coordination regarding the resident's personal care needs. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the MDS Coordinator acknowledged that care plans should be in place to address residents' ADL needs and that staff should anticipate and assist with these needs. However, the care plans for Residents #122 and #123 were missing, and the staff did not provide the necessary assistance with personal hygiene. The facility's policies on ADLs and promoting resident dignity were not followed, leading to the observed deficiencies in care.
Failure to Ensure Proper Orders and Follow-Up for Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an order was in place for pressure-relieving boots being utilized for a resident. Observations revealed the resident in bed with pressure-relieving boots on both feet, but a review of the resident's active physician orders did not show an order for these boots. Interviews with staff confirmed that the boots were used based on nursing judgment without a physician's order, and the Unit Manager acknowledged the oversight in not obtaining a proper order and specific instructions from the doctor for the use of the boots. Additionally, the facility failed to follow up on an order for a swallow test for another resident. The resident was observed with her tube feeding disconnected and later connected, and she expressed a preference to stay in bed. The resident's medical records indicated a need for a swallow test and occupational therapy evaluation, but there was a delay in follow-up due to poor communication during morning meetings. The therapy screen and progress notes confirmed the need for the swallow test and therapy evaluations, but these were not completed in a timely manner. Interviews with staff revealed that the delay in follow-up was related to poor communication during morning clinical meetings. The facility's policy on therapy referrals was reviewed, but the policy and procedure for morning clinical meetings were not provided by the last day of the survey. The lack of timely follow-up and proper documentation for therapy evaluations and physician orders contributed to the deficiencies identified in the report.
Failure to Provide Proper Oxygen Therapy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice related to oxygen therapy for a resident. Observations revealed that the resident was receiving oxygen via a nasal cannula with the oxygen concentrator set at two liters per minute. However, the oxygen tubing was found touching the floor, and the storage bag was outdated. Further review of the resident's records showed no physician orders for oxygen therapy, and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) did not document the administration of oxygen therapy. Additionally, the resident's care plan did not include any focus, goal, or interventions related to oxygen therapy. Interviews with staff confirmed that there was no physician order for the observed oxygen use. The facility's policy on oxygen administration requires that oxygen be administered under the orders of a physician, except in emergencies, and that staff document the initial and ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and response to oxygen therapy. The policy also mandates that the resident's care plan identify interventions for oxygen therapy based on the resident's assessment and orders. The facility's failure to adhere to these policies resulted in the deficiency noted in the report.
Medication Storage and Security Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to appropriately store and secure medications on the 1st floor and the 200 hall. In Resident #120's room, a white cream in a medicine cup, a bottle of eye drops, and a container of Icy Hot were found on the resident's over bed table and nightstand without proper labeling or physician orders. The resident indicated that the items were personal purchases, but there was no documentation or assessment for self-administration of these medications. Staff G, an RN, was unaware of the substances and discarded the creams, but returned the eye drops to the resident. The DON later confirmed that the resident now has an assessment and physician orders for the medications, but initially, there was no proper storage or documentation for these items. Additionally, an unlocked medication cart was observed on the 200 unit with keys hanging from the open lock and no staff members in sight. Staff V, the RN responsible for the cart, confirmed that it should always be locked when not in use and admitted to forgetting to secure it due to being busy. This lapse in protocol left medications unsecured and accessible in a resident hall, posing a potential risk to residents.
Failure to Inform Residents of Optional Arbitration Agreement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the binding arbitration agreement explicitly informed residents or their representatives of their right to not sign it. This deficiency was identified for three residents who were their own responsible parties and had intact cognition as indicated by their BIMS scores. During interviews, all three residents stated they were not aware that the arbitration agreement was optional and that signing it meant giving up their right to seek legal action. They indicated that had they known the agreement was optional, they would not have signed it. The facility's arbitration agreement did not include an explicit statement informing residents or their representatives that signing the agreement was optional. The Admissions Coordinator confirmed that while the arbitration agreement is verbally explained to residents, the form itself did not indicate that signing was optional. This lack of explicit information on the form led to the residents unknowingly signing away their rights to seek legal action, believing it was a mandatory part of the admission process.
Failure to Maintain Clean and Sanitary Resident Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment in four resident rooms (212, 216, 217, and 218) on one of the two floors. Observations revealed dirt, dust, and stains in the bathrooms, with brown matter around the toilet bases and a plastic storage bin under the toilet covered in dust. Residents reported seeing insects, including cockroaches and small flying insects, in their rooms and on their drinking cups. Housekeeping staff acknowledged the cleanliness issues and mentioned notifying their supervisor about stains and bugs. The Housekeeping Manager admitted to problems with caulking around toilet bases and stated that the facility had a pest control contractor who visits weekly. However, the issue with small flying insects was attributed to infrequent use of showers and potential drain problems. A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) confirmed the presence of flying insects throughout the building and expressed concern about insects on residents' drinking cups and plates, noting that maintenance had been informed but the issue persisted. Additionally, an observation of another resident room revealed long scrape marks on the wall behind the head of the bed and cracked baseboards with missing chunks of wood. The facility's policy on daily resident room cleaning and resident environment quality emphasized maintaining a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public. However, the observed conditions in the resident rooms and bathrooms indicated a failure to adhere to these policies, resulting in an unsanitary and uncomfortable living environment for the 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 336 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 19 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 Tampa
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palm Garden Of Tampa | 0.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Fairway Oaks Center | 0.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Excel Care Center | 0.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| The Bristol Care Center | 1.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Aviata At Fletcher | 2.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Blue Palms Health And Rehabilitation Center At Fle.
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.