Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around November 2026
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 Hamlin Place Of Boynton Beach during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Unsanitary conditions were observed in the kitchen, food storage, and equipment areas. The surveyor found residue and standing water inside ice machines, food remnants on a Robocoup, debris on adaptive rim plates and in the scoop drawer, buildup inside the oven, improperly dated sliced turkey in the walk-in refrigerator, and a peanut butter container with a dead insect on the lid in the dry goods room.
Failure to Coordinate Vision and Hearing Services: Two cognitively intact residents did not receive timely coordination for eye and hearing services. One resident reported worsening vision, inability to read, and no follow-up after an eye exam, while the other remained without hearing aids despite audiology testing showing significant hearing loss and a need for amplification. SSD and unit staff were unaware of the residents’ concerns, and neither resident had a related care plan in place.
A resident with diabetes and severe cognitive impairment had a critically low blood glucose result of 35 reported to the facility, but the record lacked evidence that the physician was notified. The ADON confirmed the result was received, said the supervisor recalled passing it to the direct care nurse, and agreed the physician did not initiate blood glucose monitoring until two days later.
Failure to coordinate dental services for a resident missing dentures. A cognitively intact resident reported losing her dentures and said she had told direct care staff multiple times, but no one followed up or gave her an update. The SSD said dental services were handled through the SSA and that she was responsible for follow-up, while an RN UM was unaware of the issue. Dental records showed evaluation for an upper denture and authorization to proceed, but no further update was provided.
Pureed diets were not prepared to the required smooth consistency for two residents with dysphagia and dementia-related conditions. Staff observed lumpy pureed meat and vegetables, including peas with skin separation, and the CDM agreed the texture was not smooth. One CNA described the meat as watery and gritty when assisting a resident with feeding.
Failure to provide influenza vaccine after consent: A resident had family consent for the flu shot entered into the EMR, but the vaccine remained pending and had not been administered. The ADON confirmed the resident was listed on the EMR dashboard as needing the vaccine and stated the usual turnaround after consent should be no more than three days, but she was unsure why it had not been given.
Inaccurate MDS assessments were completed for two residents when prescribed meds were not properly documented. One resident’s MDS omitted Eliquis and Divalproex despite current orders, and another resident’s 5-day MDS incorrectly marked no anticoagulant use even though the resident was receiving Eliquis and had a care plan addressing anticoagulant therapy.
A resident with multiple health issues experienced a delay in receiving physical and occupational therapy due to confusion over insurance coverage. Despite being eligible for Medicare Part B, therapy services were postponed for three weeks, leaving the resident uninformed about her rights to timely treatment. Facility staff admitted the delay was an error, and the administration acknowledged the findings.
A resident, who was cognitively sound, was not accommodated to attend her care plan meeting. Despite being invited, she chose not to leave her bed, and the facility did not offer to hold the meeting in her room. Instead, her family participated via phone, and decisions about her care were made without her direct input.
A resident with mild cognitive impairment and a persistent rash did not receive timely dermatological care. Despite a consult order, the facility lacked an on-site dermatologist and delayed scheduling an appointment. The resident reported ineffective treatment with the provided cream.
Unsanitary food storage and kitchen equipment conditions
Penalty
Summary
Food was not stored, prepared, distributed, and served in a sanitary manner in the kitchen and storage areas. During the initial kitchen tour, the surveyor observed built-up white residue and standing water inside one Manitowoc ice machine, black residue inside a second Manitowoc ice machine, and white and orange food remnants on the upper interior rim and plastic cover of a Robocoup food processor. Rim plates used as adaptive equipment were stored face down in a plastic bin that had yellow, orange, green, and black residue on the bottom, and the drawer that housed serving scoops had red-brown debris on the handle and under the scoops. The Vulcan oven also had a build-up of brownish black debris on the interior. Additional storage concerns were observed in the walk-in refrigerator and dry goods areas. One package of sliced turkey had no date showing when it was opened, and another package of sliced turkey was dated 11/07/25 even though the CDM stated it was safe to use for 3 days after opening. In the dry goods storage room, a 5-pound container of creamy peanut butter had residual peanut butter on the cover with a small dead insect stuck in it, and the floor under the shelves had a small creamer, a package of crackers, a packet of sweet 'N low, black debris, and white granular-like debris. The Artic refrigerator had a buildup of ice under the motor area.
Failure to Coordinate Vision and Hearing Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to coordinate access to vision services for a cognitively intact resident who had corrective lenses and reported worsening eyesight. The resident stated her vision had deteriorated, that her current glasses were no longer helping, and that she could not read crossword puzzles or the newspaper. She also reported that she had told direct care staff about the problem but had only been told they would look into it, with no update provided. The record showed an order for mobile eye services, but the care plan did not include a vision-related care plan. During interviews, the Social Services Director stated that vision services were handled through the Social Services Assistant and that the facility would place the mobile eye order and coordinate with the vendor, while she was responsible for follow-up. She was initially unaware of the resident’s concerns. A unit RN manager was also unaware of the resident’s vision concerns and agreed the resident should have been updated timely. Later, the SSD stated the resident had last been seen by eye services and no new eyeglasses were prescribed, then identified that the resident had been diagnosed with macular degeneration and needed eye shots rather than glasses. The SSD also provided an outdated eye exam form from years earlier, while the resident’s medical record did not show an active diagnosis of macular degeneration. The facility also failed to coordinate hearing services for another cognitively intact resident who was documented as not having hearing aids with adequate hearing. The resident told surveyors she was hard of hearing, had been told by the facility that hearing aids would take a couple of months, and reported that an audiologist had tested her hearing, cleaned her ears, and said she qualified for two hearing aids, but she was still waiting for them. The care plan did not include a hearing impairment care plan. The SSD stated hearing services were handled through the Social Services Assistant and that she was responsible for follow-up, but she was initially unaware of the resident’s concerns. An MDS coordinator stated the resident had previously refused an audiology consult, but staff later became aware she was very hard of hearing and now requested hearing aids. The audiology report documented significant bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and that the resident wanted amplification, yet the resident still had not received an update when the surveyor reviewed the case.
Failure to Notify Physician of Critical Blood Glucose Result
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promptly notify the physician of a critical laboratory result for Resident #4, who was admitted with diabetes and had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 6. A laboratory report for a blood sample collected on 08/09/25 documented a critically low blood glucose level of 35, with the report showing the result was received by the facility at 1:04 PM. The record contained no evidence that the physician was notified of the critical lab value. During interview and record review, the ADON agreed with the finding, stated the nurse who reviewed the report no longer worked at the facility, and reported that the supervisor who received the call recalled passing the result to the direct care nurse, who was responsible for notifying the physician. The ADON also agreed that blood glucose monitoring was not initiated by the physician until 08/11/25, two days after the critical result.
Failure to Coordinate Dental Services for a Resident Missing Dentures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to coordinate dental services for a resident who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and had an active order for mobile dental services as indicated. The resident reported that she lost her dentures a couple of months earlier after leaving them on her lunch tray and never saw them again. She stated that a dentist had refitted her for new dentures a couple of months ago, but there had been no follow-up afterward, and she had repeatedly told direct care staff about the issue without receiving a response. The resident continued to report that she had not received an update about the status of her dentures and had tried to speak with Administration without success. The Social Services Director stated that dental services were handled through the Social Service Assistant and that she was responsible for following up, but she was not aware of the resident's concerns because she had only been at the facility for about a month. A Unit Manager stated she was unaware the resident had lost her dentures and agreed someone should have followed up sooner. Dental records showed the resident was evaluated for an upper denture, impressions were planned, and authorization to proceed with dental treatment was received, but no further update related to the resident's dental services was provided.
Pureed Diets Served With Improper Texture
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 2 of 2 sampled residents on puree diets, with the issue potentially affecting 11 residents on puree diets. The facility policy for the Dysphagia Puree (Level 1) Diet stated that puree foods must be the consistency of moist mashed potatoes or pudding, and the IDDSI guidance referenced in the report stated that pureed foods should avoid skins or outer shells, including peas. Resident #128 had diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, unspecified, vascular dementia, and weakness, and was on hospice services with a diet order for regular diet with pureed texture. Resident #80 had diagnoses including oropharyngeal dysphagia and unspecified dementia, had severe cognitive impairment, and also had a diet order for regular diet with pureed texture. During kitchen observation and meal review, the pureed Salisbury Steak was found to have small lumps and was not smooth. The pureed peas and carrots also showed separation of peas from pieces of skin after a spoonful was tasted, and the Certified Dietary Manager agreed with the finding. The cook stated he was unable to prepare a smoother puree that day. The meal was then served to Resident #128, and Resident #80 was observed eating the same type of meal in the restorative dining room; her pureed meat and vegetables were lumpy. A restorative CNA assisting with feeding described the meat as more watery than pudding and gritty.
Failure to Provide Influenza Vaccine After Consent
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the provision of the influenza vaccine for one sampled resident who had a signed consent form from a family member indicating the desire and consent to receive the vaccine. The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and the record showed a Consent Form for Pneumococcal, Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccines dated 11/19/25. The form documented consent for the resident to receive the influenza vaccine, and the EMR immunization details also showed the status as pending immunization with the same consent date. During a side-by-side record review and interview on 12/11/25 at 11:17 AM, the ADON confirmed she had received the influenza vaccine from the pharmacy for the current season and had been administering it to residents who had consented. She explained that nurses and managers obtain consents each season and provide them to her to be scheduled, and that for newly admitted residents the admissions nurse obtains consent and enters the information into the EMR immunization tab. The ADON reviewed the dashboard in the EMR and confirmed the resident was listed as needing the vaccine. When asked about the turnaround time after consent, she stated it should be no more than three days, but she was unsure why the resident had not received the influenza vaccine after the family’s request.
Inaccurate MDS Medication Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate MDS assessments for 2 of 6 sampled residents by not including all administered medications. For one resident admitted with diagnoses including stroke and mood disturbance, current physician orders showed Eliquis twice daily since 08/16/25 for stroke-related treatment and Divalproex twice daily since 09/13/25 for mood disorder, but the current MDS assessment did not document use of either the anticoagulant or the anticonvulsant. During review of the MDS with the MDS Coordinator, she agreed with the findings. For another resident admitted with heart failure, unspecified atrial fibrillation, and hyperlipidemia, the record showed a physician order for Eliquis and a care plan addressing anticoagulant use and the risk of adverse effects related to anticoagulant therapy. However, the Medicare-5 Day MDS assessment indicated the resident did not use an anticoagulant in the past 7 days, even though the assessment was completed while the resident was on Eliquis. During interview, the MDS Coordinator stated the anticoagulant should have been triggered and agreed it should have been checked off.
Delayed Therapy Services Due to Insurance Confusion
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to inform a resident of her rights to receive timely specialized rehabilitation services, specifically physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT). The resident, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including a right hip fracture and a history of falling, required immediate therapeutic interventions as ordered by her physician. Despite the physician's orders for PT and OT to begin shortly after admission, the services were delayed due to issues related to the resident's insurance coverage. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the delay in therapy services was attributed to confusion over the resident's payor source. The Rehabilitation Consultant admitted that the delay was an error on their part, as they were unsure who would cover the costs of the therapy. The Business Office Manager confirmed that the resident was eligible for Medicare Part B and should have received services without delay. However, the necessary paperwork to initiate the authorization for treatment was not processed in a timely manner. The resident expressed that she was not informed about her right to receive therapy within 24 hours of admission and was left waiting for three weeks before starting treatment. This lack of communication and delay in therapy services resulted in the resident experiencing a prolonged period of inactivity, which she described as difficult. The facility's administration acknowledged the findings during the exit conference, but no further information was provided to address the identified concern.
Resident Excluded from Care Plan Meeting
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accommodate a resident's participation in her care plan meeting, which is a requirement for person-centered care. The resident, who was cognitively sound and capable of handling her personal affairs, was not present at her care plan meeting. Despite being invited, the resident chose not to leave her bed, and the facility did not offer to conduct the meeting in her room. Instead, the facility involved the resident's family members in the meeting via phone conference, where decisions regarding her care were made without her direct input. The resident had multiple medical conditions, including atrial fibrillation, heart disease, and chronic pain, which were discussed during the meeting. The interdisciplinary team, along with the resident's family, made decisions about her medication and mobility without her presence. The MDS Coordinator and Social Worker acknowledged that the resident was not present, and the facility did not provide an explanation for her absence. The administration was informed of these findings during the exit conference, but no further information was provided to address the concern.
Failure to Ensure Timely Dermatologist Consultation for Resident with Rash
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate care and services for a resident with a skin rash. The resident, who has mild cognitive impairment and requires substantial assistance with daily activities, was admitted to the facility and later developed a rash. Despite having an order for a dermatologist consult dated 05/30/24, the resident had not been seen by a dermatologist by the time of the survey. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the cream provided, stating it was ineffective, and had requested a dermatologist consultation, which had not yet been arranged. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed that the resident had a persistent rash and that the facility no longer had a dermatologist available to see residents on-site. The ADON mentioned that they were searching for a dermatologist and that the earliest appointment available for the resident was on 06/21/24. The facility had prescribed Triamcinolone Acetonide cream and Ivermectin for the rash, but the delay in obtaining a dermatologist consultation contributed to the deficiency.
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 185 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 5 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 Lantana
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vi At Lakeside Village | 0.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Finnish-american Village | 1.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Lake Worth Rehabilitation Center | 2.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Terraces Of Lake Worth Care Center And Rehab | 2.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Heartland Nursing & Rehab Center | 3.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Hamlin Place Of Boynton Beach.
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.