Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around August 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 Park Place during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two residents' personal funds were not properly managed or safeguarded by facility staff. In one case, a cognitively impaired resident's money was taken home by a staff member instead of being deposited into a trust account, with no documentation or quarterly statements provided. In another case, a resident's checkbook and debit card were held by a staff member without formal documentation or use of the facility's trust account system. Required policies for handling resident funds were not followed, and staff lacked adequate training.
Multiple residents experienced significant delays in call light response, with documented wait times ranging from 19 minutes to over an hour. Residents and family members reported repeated instances of long waits for assistance with toileting, transfers, and other care needs. Staff interviews confirmed that it was common to reset call lights and delay assistance, especially during busy periods. The facility did not have a written policy for call light response, and leadership acknowledged ongoing issues with timely responses.
A facility failed to accurately communicate a resident's behaviors during discharge planning, leading to challenges at the receiving facility. The resident, with cognitive impairments and daily wandering behavior, frequently entered other residents' rooms, requiring redirection. The receiving facility was informed of no significant behaviors, resulting in the need for 1:1 supervision upon the resident's arrival.
A facility failed to ensure timely follow-up on a Medication Regimen Review recommendation for a resident taking hypnotic medication. Despite multiple attempts by the RN Manager to obtain a physician's response to a recommendation to reduce temazepam dosage, no response was documented. The facility's policy requires documentation of actions taken or rationale for inaction, which was not adhered to, leading to the deficiency.
The facility failed to implement non-pharmacological interventions before administering an antianxiety medication and did not attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for an antidepressant for two residents. A resident with wandering behavior was given lorazepam without documented interventions, and another resident with severe cognitive impairment did not have a GDR attempted for escitalopram. The facility's policy required non-pharmacological approaches and GDR attempts, but these were not consistently followed.
Two residents experienced undignified transfers using mechanical lifts at a facility. One resident, with intact cognition, was roughly handled by a CNA during a transfer, causing distress. Another resident, with moderately impaired cognition, was subjected to inappropriate use of the emergency brake on a lift, leading to a rough landing. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and reporting of these incidents, highlighting a failure to uphold residents' rights to dignity and respect.
A facility failed to report an alleged staff-to-resident assault within the required 24-hour timeframe. A CNA observed another CNA, Staff C, handling a resident roughly during transfers, including grabbing the resident by the waistband and letting them fall onto a lift. The incident was reported to the DON by two CNAs, but the DON did not report it to authorities within the mandated period. The facility's policy requires immediate reporting of abuse allegations to the charge nurse and authorities within 24 hours.
A facility failed to investigate an alleged abuse incident involving a resident with a history of stroke and muscle weakness. A CNA was observed handling the resident roughly during a transfer, causing the resident to fall back onto a lift without proper support. The facility did not conduct a thorough investigation, lacking documentation of a physical assessment and interviews with staff or residents, contrary to its abuse prevention policy.
Failure to Safeguard and Account for Resident Personal Funds
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly manage, safeguard, and account for personal funds entrusted to staff for two residents. In the first case, a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of non-Alzheimer's dementia was admitted to the facility, and a family friend reported that a $2,500 check intended for the resident was cashed by a staff member and not properly deposited into a resident trust account. The facility lacked documentation of a request to manage the resident's funds and did not provide required quarterly account statements. The staff member responsible for resident accounts took the resident's money home during a leave of absence, only returning it after being questioned by the administrator. The staff member reported not receiving training on handling resident trust accounts and acted independently without proper oversight or documentation. In the second case, another resident, who had intact cognition, did not have a resident trust account during their stay. After the resident's death, the administrator found the resident's checkbook in the office of the same staff member. There was no written request for the facility to manage the resident's funds, and no documentation of quarterly statements being provided. Interviews revealed that the staff member had possession of the resident's debit card, which was used to assist the resident with financial transactions, but this was not formally documented or managed through the facility's trust account system. The administrator and DON were unaware that the staff member held the resident's debit card and did not report the finding or conduct an investigation after the resident's death. Facility policy required that all resident funds entrusted to the facility be deposited and withdrawn through a designated trust account, with individual records maintained and receipts provided. However, these procedures were not followed for the two residents in question. The staff member responsible for managing resident funds did not receive adequate training and acted outside of established protocols, resulting in a failure to safeguard and account for resident funds as required.
Failure to Respond to Call Lights Within Required Timeframe
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that nursing staff responded to resident call lights within 15 minutes, as required to meet the needs of every resident. Multiple sources, including Resident Council Meeting minutes, call light logs, direct observations, and interviews with residents, family members, and staff, documented repeated delays in response times. Residents and their families reported waiting from 19 minutes to over an hour for assistance, with some residents left waiting for toileting help, transfers, or other care needs. Staff interviews confirmed that it was common practice to reset call lights and tell residents they would return, sometimes resulting in further delays. Specific examples included a resident with moderately impaired cognition and significant physical care needs who waited up to 1 hour and 31 minutes for assistance, and another resident with intact cognition who reported waiting up to 42 minutes on multiple occasions. Call light logs for several residents showed numerous instances where response times exceeded 15 minutes, with some calls unanswered for over an hour. Residents with varying levels of cognitive and physical impairment, including those dependent on staff for toileting and transfers, were affected by these delays. Family members also observed and reported long wait times for their loved ones. Staff interviews revealed that response times were often longer during busy periods, such as after meals, and that staff sometimes prioritized other tasks over responding to call lights. The facility lacked a written policy for call light response times, and both the Director of Nursing and Administrator acknowledged ongoing issues with timely responses. The deficiency was further substantiated by the facility's own documentation and the absence of a formal policy to guide staff actions.
Inaccurate Discharge Planning and Communication of Resident Behaviors
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an accurate representation of a resident's behaviors and to ensure discharge needs were identified within the discharge planning process. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for the resident indicated cognitive impairments and daily wandering behavior that intruded on others' privacy. The care plan included interventions for elopement risk and behavioral symptoms, but staff interviews revealed that the resident frequently wandered into other residents' rooms and required redirection. The social worker and Director of Nursing (DON) were unaware of the extent of the resident's behaviors, which were not communicated to the receiving facility. The receiving facility's DON was informed that the resident had no significant behaviors and was unaware of the resident's tendency to follow others into their rooms. Upon arrival, the resident required 1:1 supervision due to frequent redirection needs. The facility had accepted residents from a closing facility on an emergency basis, and the resident was not suitable for the environment, prompting a search for a more appropriate placement. The lack of accurate communication regarding the resident's behaviors led to challenges in managing the resident's needs at the receiving facility.
Failure to Ensure Timely Follow-Up on Medication Regimen Review
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely follow-up on Medication Regimen Review recommendations for a resident identified as having unnecessary medications. The resident, who was rarely to never understood, was taking hypnotic medication, including temazepam. A review of the resident's care plan indicated monitoring for adverse reactions related to temazepam, quetiapine, and trazodone. A physician order dated December 4, 2023, prescribed temazepam 7.5 mg at bedtime. On March 31, 2024, a recommendation was made to reduce the temazepam dosage to PRN for two weeks to assess the resident's need for the medication. However, there was no documented response from the physician to this recommendation. The facility's RN Manager attempted to follow up on the recommendation multiple times, including on July 24, 2024, and May 23, 2024, but did not receive a response from the physician. The facility's Drug Regimen Review Policy requires the attending provider to document in the resident's record any actions taken in response to identified irregularities or provide a rationale if no action is taken. The RN Manager acknowledged that the ideal response time from the physician would be 24 to 48 hours, but this was not achieved. This lack of timely follow-up and documentation led to the deficiency identified during the survey.
Failure to Implement Non-Pharmacological Interventions and GDR
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement non-pharmacological interventions before administering an antianxiety medication and did not attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for an antidepressant for two residents. Resident #19, who was rarely or never understood and exhibited wandering behavior, was prescribed lorazepam for anxiety. The facility's records lacked documentation of non-pharmacological interventions prior to administering lorazepam on multiple occasions. Interviews with staff revealed that interventions were expected to be documented before medication administration, but this was not consistently done. Resident #21, with severely impaired cognition and a diagnosis of depression, was prescribed escitalopram. The facility did not document any attempts at a GDR for this medication. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the pharmacist missed including escitalopram in the GDR progress note and could not locate a request for a dose reduction. The facility's policy required two GDR attempts within the first year of medication use unless clinically contraindicated, but this was not followed for Resident #21. The facility's psychotropic medication policy emphasized the use of non-pharmacological approaches before medication and required documentation of these attempts. However, the facility did not adhere to this policy for the residents in question, leading to deficiencies in medication management. The DON admitted that some nurses were better at documenting interventions than others, and a charge nurse was overseeing the process to ensure compliance.
Inappropriate Use of Mechanical Lifts for Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide transfers using mechanical lifts in a dignified and respectful manner for two residents. Resident #1, who had intact cognition and required assistance with mobility due to generalized muscle weakness and a history of stroke, was subjected to inappropriate handling during a transfer. Staff C, a CNA, was reported to have grabbed Resident #1 by the pockets of his pants and wrists during a transfer using a Sara Steady lift, causing the resident to be moved roughly and land on the bed in a manner that was not gentle. This incident left Resident #1 appearing upset and apologetic, indicating a lack of dignity and respect in the handling process. Resident #4, with moderately impaired cognition, also experienced undignified treatment during transfers. Staff C was reported to have used the emergency brake on the mechanical lift, causing Resident #4 to plop into her chair from a height of about a foot. This method of using the emergency brake was not standard practice and was noted to be rough and potentially unsafe. Other staff members, including Staff D and Staff E, confirmed that the emergency brake should not be used in this manner, and it was noted that Staff C had a history of being rough with residents during transfers. Interviews with various staff members, including the Director of Nursing, revealed a lack of awareness and reporting of Staff C's inappropriate handling of residents. The DON expressed shock upon learning about the incidents and acknowledged that Resident #1 was not treated appropriately. The facility's policy and the resident's rights emphasize the importance of treating residents with dignity and respect, which was not upheld in these instances. The use of the emergency brake during transfers was also highlighted as inappropriate and not aligned with the facility's procedures for safe and respectful resident care.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an alleged staff-to-resident assault within the required 24-hour timeframe for one resident. The incident involved a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), identified as Staff C, who was observed by another CNA, Staff A, during a transfer. Staff A reported that Staff C grabbed the resident by the waistband and pulled him up from the wheelchair, and later let the resident flop down onto the lift paddles. During another transfer to bed, Staff C was reported to have roughly handled the resident by grabbing him by the pockets of his pants to stand him up and later letting him fall back onto the bed. Staff B, another CNA, corroborated that Staff C was rough with residents and did not follow proper procedures during transfers. The incident was reported to the Director of Nursing (DON) by Staff A an hour after it occurred, and by Staff B the following day. However, the DON confirmed that the alleged abuse was not reported to the appropriate authorities within the required 24-hour period. The facility's policy mandates that allegations of abuse be reported immediately to the charge nurse, who is then responsible for notifying the DON, the Administrator, or a designated representative. The policy further requires that the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals be notified immediately, and no later than 24 hours after any allegations, even on weekends or holidays. The failure to adhere to this policy resulted in a deficiency being cited during the survey.
Failure to Investigate Alleged Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate an alleged abuse incident involving a resident with intact cognition and medical diagnoses of generalized muscle weakness and a history of stroke. The incident occurred when a CNA was observed handling the resident roughly during a transfer using a mechanical lift. The CNA reportedly grabbed the resident by the waistband and pockets of his pants, causing the resident to fall back onto the lift paddles and bed without proper support. The resident was described as shaky and having difficulty standing, and the CNA's actions were reported to be rough and lacking communication with the resident. The facility's documentation lacked a comprehensive investigation into the incident. There was no documentation of a physical assessment of the resident following the incident, and no additional staff or residents were interviewed to gather further information. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the lack of immediate action and documentation, stating that she did not chart the assessment of the resident's wrists and did not conduct further interviews with staff or residents. The facility's policy on abuse prevention and investigation outlines specific steps to be taken in such cases, including immediate physical assessments, documentation, and interviews with relevant parties. However, these procedures were not followed, resulting in an incomplete investigation of the alleged abuse. The failure to adhere to the policy and thoroughly investigate the incident constitutes a deficiency in the facility's handling of the situation.
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 49 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 Mount Pleasant
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woodland Health And Rehabilitation | 1 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| Savannah Heights | 1.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| New London Specialty Care | 8.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| Sunrise Terrace Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 12.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Parkview Home | 13.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Park Place.
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.