Below 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 October 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Christian City Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe dementia and a high elopement risk left the facility unnoticed after being last seen in the lobby. Staff did not follow instructions to place a wander guard or move the resident to the Memory Unit, and the front entrance doors were open and unalarmed. The resident was later found miles away on a highway after staff initiated the elopement protocol.
A resident with dementia and wandering tendencies was not protected from elopement after staff failed to follow instructions to place a Wander Guard and move him to the Secured Memory Unit. The resident was seen in the lobby, later could not be located, and was found miles from the facility after leaving unsupervised; the front entry door also lacked an operational Wander Guard system.
A resident with generalized weakness, gait/mobility impairment, obesity, muscle spasm, and cervical spinal stenosis was care planned for a two-person assist with transfers, with intact cognition noted on MDS. A CNA transferred the resident alone, the resident's legs gave out, and the resident fell to the floor; the DON and Administrator confirmed the care plan was not followed, and the resident's family confirmed the resident had been planned for two-person transfer assistance.
A resident with weakness, abnormal gait, obesity, and spinal stenosis was care planned for a two-person assist for transfers, but was transferred by only one CNA and fell to the floor. Staff later used a Hoyer lift to return the resident to bed, and x-rays showed no fracture or dislocation. Interviews with the family, CNA, DON, and Administrator confirmed the resident had been transferred without the required second staff member.
Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and elopement prevention for one resident with severe cognitive impairment and a high elopement risk. The resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. The admission MDS showed a BIMS score of 3, wandering behavior, and that the wandering placed the resident at significant risk of reaching a potentially dangerous place. The admission elopement risk assessment identified the resident as high risk for elopement. On the day of the incident, the resident was seen in his room by a CNA at 3:30 AM and later was last seen by the receptionist sitting in the front lobby at 4:30 AM. At 5:45 AM, staff could not locate the resident, and the elopement protocol was initiated at 6:10 AM. The resident was found about an hour later by an LPN approximately three miles away from the facility. A police report documented that officers responded to the facility and were advised that a staff member had located the resident on a highway. Facility records and interviews showed that the resident had been identified as needing a wander guard and placement in the Memory Unit, but those instructions were not followed. The receptionist stated she stepped outside through the front door for a break and was unaware the resident had gone out after her, and she was unaware he was an elopement risk. Observation of the entrance showed two automatic doors that opened automatically, with visitors not required to sign in. Staff also confirmed the main entry door remained open 24/7 and that the wander guard system was not connected to the door to alarm if a resident attempted to exit.
Failure to Protect Resident from Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility administration failed to manage the facility in a manner that protected residents and safeguarded them from elopement. The Administrator and DON job descriptions stated they were responsible for directing and overseeing facility operations in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, but the facility was aware that the front entry door did not have an operational Wander Guard system and corrective measures were not implemented. The report identified this as an Immediate Jeopardy related to F689 and F835, with the noncompliance beginning on July 16, 2026. Resident 1 was admitted with a dementia diagnosis and an elopement assessment was completed on admission, with staff noting wandering tendencies and that the resident was suitable for the Secured Memory Unit. On July 16, 2026, the resident was seen in his room at 3:30 AM, then in the front lobby at 4:30 AM, and was later unable to be located at 5:45 AM. The elopement protocol was initiated at 6:10 AM, and the resident was found about one hour later three miles from the facility. The Administrator stated the resident had been instructed to be placed on a Wander Guard device and moved to the Secured Memory Unit, but those instructions were not followed. The receptionist also stated she did not recognize the resident as a resident and thought he was a visitor.
Failure to Follow Two-Person Transfer Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow the care plan for one of three sampled residents, R1, related to a two-person assist for transfers. R1 was admitted with diagnoses including generalized muscle weakness, other abnormalities of gait and mobility, BMI 45.0-49.9, other muscle spasm, and spinal stenosis of the cervical region. The most recent quarterly MDS documented a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The care plan dated 10/29/2025 stated that R1 required a two-person assist for transfers, and physician orders dated 10/28/2025 included physical therapy six days a week for eight weeks for weakness, gait, and mobility. On 11/6/2025, CNA DD transferred R1 without a second staff member, and R1 fell to the floor. CNA DD stated she was the only staff member assigned to care for R1 and asked R1 to stand with her hands on the bed so she could be cleaned when R1's legs gave out and she fell onto her knees. The DON and Administrator confirmed CNA DD did not follow the care plan and that R1 fell as a result. R1's family member also confirmed that R1 suffered a fall due to being transferred by one CNA and stated R1 had initially been care planned for two-person assistance with transfers.
Failure to Provide Required Transfer Assistance Resulted in Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide assistance to prevent a fall for one of three sampled residents, a resident with generalized muscle weakness, abnormal gait and mobility, obesity, other muscle spasm, and cervical spinal stenosis. The resident’s EMR showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating little to no cognitive impairment. The care plan dated 10/29/2025 documented that the resident required a two-person assist for transfers, and physician orders dated 10/28/2025 included physical therapy six days a week for weakness, gait, and mobility. On 11/6/2025, the resident was observed kneeling on her knees at the bedside while therapy and nursing staff attempted to get her off the floor and back into bed. A Hoyer lift was used to safely return the resident to bed. The next day, x-rays of the bilateral hips, knees, femur, and skull were completed and were negative for fracture or dislocation. Progress notes also documented that the resident was resting quietly, had no signs or symptoms of delayed injury, and required two-person assistance with bed mobility care. Interviews confirmed that the resident had been transferred by only one CNA when the fall occurred, despite being care planned for two-person assistance. The resident’s family member stated the resident fell due to being transferred by one CNA and confirmed the resident had initially been care planned for two-person assistance for transfers. The DON and Administrator confirmed that CNA DD transferred the resident without a second staff member, resulting in the resident falling to the floor, and CNA DD stated she was the only staff member assigned to care for the resident at the time.
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 311 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 6 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 Union City
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairburn Heights Of Journey Llc | 3.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 9 | 0 |
| Riverdale Center For Nursing And Healing | 7.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 8 | 0 |
| Fayetteville Center For Nursing & Healing Llc | 7.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Healthcare At College Park, Llc | 8.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Arrowhead Post Acute Llc | 8.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Christian City Rehabilitation Center.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release October 2026) and official state health department websites.