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 Eagle Health & Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two residents with cognitive impairment and dysphagia, both dependent on staff for feeding and prescribed pureed diets, were served meals that did not meet IDDSI Level 4 standards. Staff and dietary personnel observed and confirmed that the food was not smooth, contained lumps, stringy meat, and vegetables with skins, contrary to dietary requirements. The facility lacked a written policy for mechanically altered diets and did not consistently ensure proper food preparation for these residents.
A resident with severe physical and cognitive impairments who required a plate guard for eating did not receive proper assistance or consistent placement of the adaptive device. Staff lacked clear instructions on the correct positioning of the plate guard and responsibility for its use, resulting in food spillage and inadequate support during meals. Documentation and care plans referenced the need for the device but failed to specify essential details for its effective use.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors was repeatedly observed engaging in sexual acts and touching other residents in public areas. Despite these incidents, the care plan did not include specific interventions to prevent further abuse, and staff interviews revealed inconsistent monitoring and separation practices. Two other residents with significant cognitive and physical impairments were directly involved in these incidents, highlighting the facility's failure to implement effective measures to protect vulnerable individuals.
The facility did not ensure that allegations of sexual abuse involving three residents were reported to the SSA within the required two-hour timeframe. In each case, staff either failed to promptly notify the Administrator or the Administrator delayed reporting while seeking additional information, resulting in late notification to authorities despite clear policy requirements.
Failure to Provide Properly Prepared Pureed Diets
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food prepared in a form designed to meet the individual needs of two residents who required a pureed diet. Both residents had significant cognitive impairments and were dependent on staff for feeding, with physician orders and care plans specifying a pureed diet due to diagnoses including dementia and dysphagia. Despite these requirements, observations over several days revealed that meals served to these residents did not meet the IDDSI Level 4 Pureed standard, as the food was not smooth, contained lumps, stringy meat, rice that was not pudding consistency, and vegetables with skins and chunks. Staff interviews confirmed that the food provided was not of the appropriate consistency for a pureed diet. Certified Medication Aides and Certified Nursing Assistants noted that the meals were not smooth, contained stringy pieces, and included items such as corn with husks and peas with skins, which are specifically listed as foods to avoid for pureed diets. The dietary manager acknowledged that on at least one day, the food was not pureed long enough and did not meet the required consistency, and further admitted that the meat and vegetables were not smooth enough on subsequent days. The Registered Dietitian stated that the facility followed the IDDSI guidelines and used the spoon test to assess food consistency, but was unable to provide documentation of the policy when requested. The Nursing Home Administrator also stated there was no written policy for mechanically altered food, as the facility relied on the IDDSI. Despite staff awareness of the requirements, the facility did not consistently ensure that pureed diets were prepared and served according to prescribed standards, resulting in residents receiving food that was not appropriate for their needs.
Failure to Provide Proper Adaptive Eating Equipment and Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate special eating equipment and assistance for a resident with significant physical and cognitive impairments. The resident, who had spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy, severe intellectual disabilities, and general weakness, required the use of a plate guard to assist with eating. Despite documentation in various assessments and care plans indicating the need for a plate guard, there were no specific instructions regarding the correct positioning of the plate guard, how it should be used, or who was responsible for ensuring it was properly placed during meals. Observations revealed that the plate guard was inconsistently positioned on the resident's plate during meals, resulting in food spillage onto the table and the resident's clothing. Staff did not provide assistance or cueing while the resident ate, and the plate guard was not always placed in a manner that would prevent food from falling off the plate. Interviews with staff, including nursing, dietary, and therapy personnel, confirmed a lack of clarity regarding the correct placement of the plate guard, the responsible party for its placement, and the absence of clear instructions in the care plan or other documentation. The care plan and nutritional assessments referenced the use of a plate guard but failed to specify the necessary details for its effective use. Staff interviews indicated that there was no policy or standardized process for the use of assistive devices during meals, and the care plan did not include information about the correct positioning of the plate guard or staff responsibilities. This lack of guidance and oversight led to inconsistent and inadequate support for the resident's eating needs.
Failure to Protect Residents from Sexual Abuse Due to Inadequate Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from sexual abuse by not developing or implementing adequate interventions to address a resident's (R2) ongoing sexually inappropriate behaviors toward other residents. R2, who had severe cognitive impairment and a history of inappropriate sexual behaviors, was observed on multiple occasions engaging in sexual acts in public areas, including masturbating and touching other residents. Despite documentation of these behaviors and staff observations, the care plan for R2 did not include specific interventions to prevent sexual abuse or protect other residents from further incidents. R2's medical history included severe cognitive impairment, difficulty walking, and behavioral disturbances. The resident was prescribed medications such as medroxyprogesterone and later Paxil to address sexual dysfunction and behavioral issues. However, there were lapses in medication administration, with missed doses of medroxyprogesterone in two consecutive months, and staff were not consistently implementing or documenting interventions to prevent R2 from having access to other vulnerable residents. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding and application of monitoring and separation protocols for R2, with some staff stating they were told to keep R2 away from other residents, while others reported no specific instructions. Two other residents with severe cognitive impairment and limited mobility were directly involved in incidents where R2 was observed engaging in inappropriate sexual contact with them. In both cases, staff intervened after the incidents occurred, but there was no evidence of proactive care planning or environmental modifications to prevent recurrence. The facility's failure to identify, assess, and implement effective interventions to address R2's behaviors resulted in repeated exposure of other residents to potential sexual abuse.
Failure to Timely Report Allegations of Sexual Abuse to State Survey Agency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that allegations of sexual abuse involving three residents were reported to the state survey agency (SSA) within the required two-hour timeframe, as outlined in the facility's own Abuse Prohibition-Reporting and Investigating policy. In the first incident, a staff member observed a resident masturbating and rubbing another resident's leg in a common area. Although the incident was reported to a charge nurse and documented in the nursing notes, the Administrator was not informed until several days later during a chart review. Staff members involved each believed the other would report the incident, resulting in a significant delay in notifying the SSA. In the second case, a staff member found a resident in distress and pointing to their genital area after being alone with another resident. The staff member reported the situation to a nurse and then called the Administrator, who was not on site. The Administrator instructed a nurse to interview the resident but did not immediately recognize the situation as an abuse allegation requiring prompt reporting. The incident was only reported to the SSA after the resident communicated to the nurse that something had happened, leading to uncertainty about the actual time of the event and the timeliness of the report. The third incident involved a staff member witnessing a resident rubbing another resident's inner thigh. The staff member promptly notified the DON and the physician, and the DON notified the Administrator. However, the Administrator delayed reporting to the SSA while seeking additional information and consulting with a clinical consultant. The incident report contained conflicting times, and the SSA was not notified within the required two-hour window. In all three cases, the facility did not adhere to its policy or federal requirements for timely reporting of abuse allegations.
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 41 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 2 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 Statesboro
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown's Health And Rehabilitation | 0.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Westwood Healthcare And Rehabilitation | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Heritage Inn Health And Rehabilitation | 1.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Orchard Health And Rehabilitation | 10.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Pleasant View Nursing Center | 15.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Eagle Health & Rehabilitation.
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.