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 Rehabilitation Center Of Allison during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Failure to Follow Ordered Skin Tear Treatment: A resident with impaired cognition, CVA, and CKD sustained a skin tear to the R shin after a fall. Staff documented the injury and an order for daily dressing changes, but the order was not entered on the TAR and treatment was not documented for 10 days. During that time, the wound bed worsened and the surrounding skin became macerated and broken down. Staff later acknowledged the missing order and lack of daily wound care documentation.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, aphasia, and major mobility limitations fell and then developed worsening right leg, knee, and hip pain with grimacing, swelling, crying, and pain rated as 8/10. Staff documented an initial no-injury assessment, gave Tylenol and Ativan, and continued to note pain and a change to mechanical-lift transfers, but the resident was not sent for ER evaluation until later, when the hospital found an acute right hip fracture requiring surgery.
Failure to treat residents with dignity and respect: Two cognitively intact residents reported disrespectful care and communication from staff. One resident, who was legally blind and dependent on staff for several ADLs, said meds were not given as expected and that a weekend RN did not treat her with dignity; another resident, with CVA, paraplegia, and dependence for personal care, complained that agency staff were rude, did not listen, and walked out before meeting her needs. The DON and Administrator acknowledged residents should be treated with dignity and respect.
Delayed notification of resident falls to family and Hospice. Two residents with cognitive impairment and significant care needs experienced multiple falls, but staff did not promptly notify the legal representative or Hospice provider after the incidents. One resident's wife was upset that she was not called after consecutive falls, and another resident's representative said he received notice hours later or the next day instead of right away.
Failure to provide scheduled showers: two residents with intact cognition and ADL dependence did not receive showers as directed by their POCs. One resident with cancer, HF, HTN, DM, and depression reported getting only one shower weekly instead of two, and another resident with a stroke, paraplegia, neurogenic bladder, and moisture-associated skin damage reported not receiving two showers weekly and refusing bed baths. EHR review showed multiple missed shower appointments despite the facility’s expectation of two showers or baths per week.
A facility failed to provide adequate supervision for two residents with impaired cognition and mobility. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and a fall risk care plan requiring his room door to remain open was found on the floor after his door was closed while he yelled for help, and he sustained a hip fracture. Another resident who required 2-person assistance for transfers was helped by only one staff member, lost balance, and fell backward onto the floor.
Delayed response to resident call lights was cited after staff failed to answer calls within the facility’s 15-minute expectation for multiple residents. A resident with impaired cognition and extensive ADL needs, a resident with intact cognition and dependence for ADLs, and another resident with paraplegia and dependence for personal care all reported waits over 15 minutes, and call light logs documented several prolonged response times. The DON, CNA, and Administrator acknowledged the 15-minute standard, and the CNA stated staff shortages prevented consistent compliance.
Two residents were not treated with dignity and respect when their personal care and environmental preferences were disregarded. One resident, who preferred to be clean shaven, was left unshaven for several days despite repeated requests and care plan documentation. Another resident's request to have her room cleaned at a different time and to keep the light off while watching a movie was ignored by housekeeping staff, who continued cleaning and turned the light back on. Staff interviews confirmed awareness of resident rights, but these were not upheld in practice.
A staff member alleged to have potentially abused a resident was not removed from contact with other residents after the incident. Instead, the staff member continued to clean multiple occupied rooms without supervision, contrary to facility policy requiring immediate separation of employees accused of abuse from all residents during an investigation.
A resident with intact cognition and independence in self-care reported being pushed by a housekeeper. An LPN assessed the resident and notified supervisory staff, but the housekeeper was not immediately removed from contact with other residents. The facility's investigation lacked interviews with other residents and staff present at the time, and did not document whether the accused staff member had further contact with residents.
The facility did not have an RN on duty for the required eight consecutive hours on one day, as confirmed by the DON. This deficiency was identified through a review of schedules, time cards, and staff interviews, with the facility having a census of 40 residents.
The facility failed to implement care plans for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. A resident requiring a lift device for transfers was instead moved with a gait belt by two staff members, as confirmed by the DON. Another resident, who needed a mechanical lift for transfers, was found on the floor and assisted back to bed by three staff using a gait belt, contrary to her care plan.
A resident's electronic health records were inaccurately documented due to a staff member altering medication counts and forging another LPN's signature for Lorazepam administration. The facility's policy required reporting discrepancies and initiating new forms, which were not followed, leading to the deficiency.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and diabetes did not receive insulin according to the manufacturer's instructions. An LPN failed to prime the insulin pen and did not keep it in place for the required time after administration. The DON acknowledged these failures, and the facility lacked specific policies for insulin administration.
A facility failed to complete required pre and post dialysis assessments for a resident with stage 5 chronic kidney disease. Despite physician's orders and a care plan outlining necessary monitoring and reporting, multiple instances of incomplete assessments were identified. The DON acknowledged the inconsistency, and the facility lacked a specific dialysis care policy.
The facility failed to follow proper food handling protocols, with staff observed touching the drinking rims of glasses and not covering desserts during transport. The facility also lacked a policy on dining or food handling.
A resident received an incorrect dose of Lisinopril for 18 days due to a failure to update the medication order and lack of a policy on medication administration. The LPN confirmed the error, and the DON acknowledged the oversight.
Failure to Follow Ordered Treatment for Skin Tear
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide ordered treatment and care for a skin tear on Resident #5’s right shin. Resident #5 had a BIMS score of 9, required partial to moderate assistance with ADLs, and had diagnoses including CVA and chronic kidney disease. After she fell when her knee gave out, staff documented a 2 cm by 2 cm skin tear on the front of her right shin, cleansed the area, and applied a bandage. The incident report ordered the bandage to be changed daily until the wound healed, and the skin condition record initially documented the wound as a skin tear measuring 2.0 cm by 2.0 cm. The April 2026 TAR did not include the 4/6/26 treatment order, and the facility had no documentation of treatment being initiated until 4/16/26, 10 days later. During that period, the wound worsened: the 4/13/26 skin condition record documented dark pink/red tissue, reddened surrounding skin, and a macerated area around the skin tear. Later records continued to show partial thickness tissue with serous drainage and maceration. Staff acknowledged the TAR lacked the original order and confirmed the clinical record did not show daily treatments, while the skin management policy directed staff to complete a skin evaluation, notify the physician, and obtain treatment orders when a resident experienced a new injury.
Delayed Evaluation After Fall With Unrelieved Pain
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely medical evaluation and assessment after a resident fell and then developed escalating right leg, knee, and hip pain. Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment, aphasia, reduced mobility, dependence for transfers and toileting hygiene, wheelchair use, and multiple chronic conditions including CVA, heart failure, diabetes, renal insufficiency, hypertension, anemia, and weakness. The care plan identified acute pain as a focus area and directed staff to assess pain, evaluate the effectiveness of pain management, and notify the physician if pain was not relieved or represented a significant change. After the fall, staff documented an initial assessment with no visible injury, and the resident was assisted into a recliner. However, subsequent documentation and staff statements showed the resident had ongoing and worsening pain. Staff noted facial grimacing, restlessness, agitation, pain in the right knee and leg, swelling of the right knee, and pain rated as 8 out of 10. Staff also documented that the resident cried, whimpered, and screamed when touched or moved, and that transfers changed to a mechanical lift with multiple staff due to pain. Despite these findings, the resident was not sent for immediate hospital evaluation until after continued complaints and reassessment the following day. A nurse later requested further assessment, and the resident was then sent to the ER for evaluation. The hospital reported that the resident arrived with a fractured right hip and required surgery. Staff interviews reflected that multiple staff believed the resident should have been sent to the ER earlier because of the pain complaints and change in condition, and the physician later confirmed the resident needed ER evaluation and x-ray because of the right leg and knee pain.
Failure to Treat Residents with Dignity and Respect
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to treat residents with respect and dignity for 2 of 4 residents reviewed, involving Resident #6 and Resident #7. Resident #6 had a BIMS score of 15 and was documented as cognitively intact, but she depended on staff for toileting hygiene, dressing, and transfers, used a wheelchair independently, and had diagnoses including cancer, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and depression. Her care plan stated she preferred to self-administer medications with meals because of gastric issues and that staff should not keep medication at the bedside. During a provider visit, she was upset that she did not receive medications at supper, and the RN found medications, including Tums and Tylenol, in cups on the bedside table that Resident #6 had not taken. Resident #6 stated she was legally blind and could only see shades and outlines, so she did not know the medications were there. She also stated that a weekend RN did not give her medications one hour before meals and that she felt the staff member did not treat her with dignity and respect. Resident #7 also had a BIMS score of 15 and was documented as cognitively intact, with limited ROM in her arms and legs, dependence on staff for toileting hygiene, dressing, personal hygiene, and transfers, and diagnoses including neurogenic bladder, CVA, paraplegia, and moisture associated skin damage. Her care plan documented behavior problems related to derogatory and racist comments toward African American staff, and she stated she did not want Black men performing personal care, though they could bring medications. IDT notes documented complaints from Resident #7 and her daughter that agency staff did not listen, were rude, and walked out before meeting her needs, and the daughter stated she witnessed this. Resident #7 later stated that a staff member did not treat her with the dignity and respect she deserved and that she wanted to be treated as a person. The DON and Administrator acknowledged that staff should treat residents with dignity and respect, and the facility’s Resident Rights-Dignity and Respect policy stated residents have the right to considerate and respectful care and treatment with honesty, dignity, and respect.
Delayed notification of resident falls to family and Hospice
Penalty
Summary
The facility did not ensure timely notification of incidents to the legal representative or Hospice provider for 2 residents. Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 4, indicating severe cognitive impairment, and required partial to moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, dressing, and personal hygiene, while transferring and ambulating independently. Her diagnoses included heart failure, hypertension, Alzheimer's Disease, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The record showed Hospice was informed on 3/10/26 that she had fallen the previous night at 6:50 PM, and Hospice asked why no one had called sooner so a representative could examine her. A later Hospice communication documented that Resident #2 fell again the previous night, and staff confirmed two falls on consecutive nights; Hospice stated the resident's wife had not been called and was upset. Resident #4 had a BIMS score of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition, and required substantial to maximal assistance with ADLs, including transfers and ambulation. Her diagnoses included heart failure, hypertension, non-Alzheimer's dementia, history of falling, and gait and mobility abnormalities. The record documented multiple falls, including a witnessed fall when she lost her balance and fell backward onto her bottom, a fall found on the floor in front of the bathroom door, and another fall while attempting to transfer herself. Documentation showed staff did not notify the family at the time of at least one fall, and Hospice was informed later about the incidents. The resident's representative stated he received a call from the Hospice Nurse hours later or the following day and wanted notification when falls happened instead of after a delay. The DON confirmed nurses should notify families immediately after an incident.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Showers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure two residents received showers in accordance with their plans of care. Resident #6 had intact cognition with a BIMS score of 15 and required staff assistance with ADLs due to poor eyesight, impaired mobility, and incontinence. Her POC directed staff to assist her with a shower or bath two times per week, but the EHR showed showers were scheduled on 3/11/26, 3/29/26, and 4/5/26 and she did not receive showers on those dates. During interview, she stated she only got one shower a week and wanted two showers a week. Resident #7 also had a BIMS score of 15 and required staff assistance with ADLs related to a stroke and impaired mobility, with dependence for showers, toileting hygiene, dressing, and personal hygiene. Her POC directed staff to assist her with a shower or bath per the schedule, and she stated she had not been receiving showers twice a week and refused bed baths, wanting two showers a week. The EHR documented showers were scheduled on 3/16/26, 4/2/26, 4/6/26, and 4/9/26, and she did not receive showers on those dates. The Administrator stated the facility expected staff to provide two showers or baths per week for all residents, and the Hygiene-Bathing/Shower policy directed staff to cleanse skin to promote cleanliness and prevent infection.
Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision During Transfers and Room Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision to protect residents from hazards in the environment for 2 of 5 residents reviewed. Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 3, was severely cognitively impaired, had impaired mobility, used a wheelchair, and required substantial to maximal assistance with transfers. His care plan identified a fall risk related to impaired cognition, weakness, impaired mobility, and history of falls, and directed staff to keep his room door open, check him frequently, and provide frequent visualization. Despite this, the incident report documented that on 4/19/26 his room door was closed while he yelled for help, and staff found him sitting on the floor with complaints of right knee pain and a right hip fracture. Staff interviews and the investigation report confirmed the door was closed when he was found on the floor. Resident #4 had a BIMS score of 12, required substantial to maximal assistance with ADLs, needed help with transfers and ambulation, had a history of falls, and her care plan directed staff to use 2 staff members with a walker and gait belt for transfers and ambulation. The fall report documented that on 4/22/26, one nursing staff person assisted Resident #4 to transfer to bed, during which she lost balance and fell backward onto the floor. The incident note stated an aide assisted her to bed when she lost her balance and fell onto her bottom. Staff and the DON later confirmed that the care plan required 2 staff members for transfers at all times.
Delayed Response to Resident Call Lights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to answer resident call lights in a timely manner, with call lights remaining unanswered for longer than the facility’s 15-minute expectation for 3 of 4 residents reviewed. Resident #4 had moderately impaired cognition, substantial to maximal assistance needs with ADLs, frequent urinary incontinence, occasional bowel incontinence, and diagnoses including heart failure, hypertension, non-Alzheimer’s dementia, a history of falls, and gait and mobility abnormalities. She stated staff took over 15 minutes to answer her call light, and the Past Calls report documented one call light remaining on for 32 minutes. Resident #6 had intact cognition, depended on staff for ADLs, and had diagnoses including cancer, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and depression. She stated staff took over 15 minutes to answer her call light, and the Past Calls report showed multiple waits over 15 minutes, including 16.11 minutes, 27.28 minutes, and 22.33 minutes. Resident #7 had intact cognition, functional limitation in range of motion, and depended on staff for showers, toileting hygiene, dressing, and personal hygiene; her diagnoses included neurogenic bladder, cerebrovascular accident, paraplegia, and moisture associated skin damage. She stated staff took over 15 minutes to answer her call light and that she would holler and yell until someone came, and the Past Calls report documented waits of 16.18 minutes and 21.31 minutes. The DON, a CNA, and the Administrator acknowledged call lights should be answered within 15 minutes, and the CNA stated staff shortages prevented this from happening consistently.
Failure to Honor Resident Dignity and Preferences in Care and Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor the dignity and personal preferences of two residents regarding their care and environment. One resident, who historically preferred to be clean shaven as documented in his care plan, was observed over multiple days with significant facial hair growth. Despite expressing his desire to be shaved during his scheduled shower, the CNA did not perform the shave, and the resident remained unshaven for several days. Staff interviews confirmed that male residents should be asked daily about shaving preferences, and the resident himself reported requesting a shave that was not provided, even though he had his own razor and was told the facility would supply one. Another resident, with intact cognition and a history of verbal aggression, experienced a lack of respect for her preferences during a room cleaning. The resident requested that the light be turned off while she watched a movie and asked the housekeeper to return later. The housekeeper, however, continued cleaning and turned the light back on despite the resident's objections. Staff interviews revealed that the housekeeper was aware of resident rights and abuse prevention training, and the housekeeping supervisor acknowledged that cleaning should be rescheduled if a resident requests it. These incidents demonstrate that the facility did not consistently ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect, as required. Both residents' preferences and care plans were not followed, and staff did not adequately respond to their requests, resulting in a failure to uphold their rights to self-determination and a dignified existence.
Failure to Prevent Staff Accused of Abuse from Resident Contact
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent a staff member who was alleged to have potentially abused a resident from having contact with other residents. The incident involved a resident with intact cognition and several medical diagnoses, who became involved in a confrontation with a housekeeper. The resident reported that the housekeeper insisted on cleaning the room and turning on the lights despite the resident's wishes, leading to a physical interaction where the resident reached over the staff member to turn off the light and the staff member raised her hands. Both parties acknowledged physical contact, but no injuries were observed or reported. Following the incident, the nurse on duty was paged and responded to the resident's room, assessed the situation, and provided emotional support. The housekeeper was directed to leave the resident's room but was not removed from the facility or prevented from entering other resident rooms. The housekeeper continued to clean approximately 18 other rooms, most of which were occupied by residents, without supervision or restriction. Interviews with staff confirmed that while the staff member was separated from the resident involved in the incident, she was not separated from other residents as required by facility policy. The policy mandates that any employee accused of abuse should be immediately separated from all residents to prevent further potential abuse while an investigation is conducted. The failure to implement this policy resulted in the staff member having unsupervised access to other residents after the allegation was made.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Alleged Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse involving a resident who reported being pushed by a housekeeper. The resident, who was cognitively intact and largely independent in self-care, reported the incident to an LPN, who assessed the resident and found no injuries. The LPN notified the nurse manager and the Administrator, and the housekeeper was removed from the immediate situation. However, the housekeeper was allowed to finish her shift and leave the facility, and there was no documentation that the housekeeper was prevented from having further contact with other residents following the allegation. The facility's investigation was incomplete, lacking interviews with other residents and staff who were present on the date of the incident. There was no documentation to determine if other residents may have been affected or if the accused staff member had additional contact with residents. The investigation report included only two staff statements and did not include statements from all relevant personnel. The Administrator acknowledged that no other residents were interviewed as part of the investigation, and only a limited number of staff were spoken to, despite directions to obtain written statements from everyone involved.
Failure to Provide Required RN Coverage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight consecutive hours on February 8, 2025, as required by Federal Regulations. This deficiency was identified through a review of the facility's schedule, time cards, staff interviews, and policy documents. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed during an interview that February 8 was the only day without the required RN coverage. The facility had a census of 40 residents at the time of the deficiency.
Failure to Implement Care Plans for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement care plans for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #1, who required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) due to cognitive impairment and used a wheelchair, was observed being transferred from her wheelchair to her bed with the assistance of two staff members and a gait belt, but without the required lift device. This was confirmed by the Director of Nursing (DON) who was present during the transfer. Resident #2, who also required assistance with ADLs due to impaired cognition and weakness, was found on the floor and was assisted back to bed by three staff members using a gait belt, instead of the mechanical lift device specified in her care plan. An incident report documented this event, indicating a failure to follow the care plan for functional transfers.
Medication Documentation and Signature Forgery
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide complete and accurately documented electronic health records for a resident, as evidenced by discrepancies in the Controlled Medication Utilization Record form. The form, dated 9/30/24, indicated the receipt of 60 Lorazepam/Ativan 0.25 mg tablets, which were 30 - 0.5 mg tablets cut in half by the pharmacy. The order was to administer twice daily and one by mouth every 12 hours as needed. An unknown staff member altered the quantity received from 30 to 60 1/2 tablets without signing and dating the change. Additionally, the form included an entry that a Lorazepam pill was administered by a staff member whose signature was forged by another staff member. Interviews revealed that Staff A, an LPN, admitted to altering the medication count and forging the signature of Staff B, another LPN, for the administration of Lorazepam. The Director of Nursing confirmed the signature discrepancy, and Staff B confirmed the forgery. The facility's Controlled Medications policy required discrepancies to be reported to the pharmacy, DON, and/or Administrator, and a new form to be initiated if the pharmacy did not provide a controlled substance flow sheet. However, these procedures were not followed, leading to the deficiency in documentation and medication administration.
Failure to Administer Insulin According to Manufacturer's Instructions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer insulin according to the manufacturer's recommendations for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The resident was prescribed to receive 6 units of insulin Aspart solution subcutaneously three times a day. During an observation, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) prepared the insulin pen for the resident but did not prime the pen as required by the manufacturer's instructions. The LPN administered the insulin without priming, which could lead to air being injected instead of the correct dose. Additionally, the LPN did not follow the manufacturer's instructions to keep the insulin pen in place for at least 6 seconds after administration to ensure the full dose was delivered. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged these failures during an interview. The facility did not have specific policies related to medication or insulin administration, relying instead on professional nursing standards.
Failure to Complete Dialysis Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete pre and post dialysis assessments for a resident with stage 5 chronic kidney disease who required dialysis. The resident, unable to complete a mental status assessment, had been receiving dialysis while residing at the facility. Physician's orders required staff to conduct dialysis assessments before and after dialysis sessions on specific days, as well as daily evaluations on non-dialysis days. However, a review of the clinical records revealed multiple instances where these assessments were not completed as directed. The care plan for the resident included specific instructions for monitoring and reporting any signs or symptoms of complications from dialysis, as well as care for the dialysis site. Despite these directives, the facility's records showed numerous dates where either pre or post dialysis assessments, or both, were not conducted. During an interview, the Director of Nursing acknowledged the inconsistency in completing the required assessments. Additionally, the facility lacked a specific policy for dialysis care, as revealed by the Administrator.
Improper Food Handling and Transport
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to proper food handling protocols during meal service, as observed on multiple occasions. Staff members, including a Registered Nurse, Dietary Aide, Certified Nursing Aide (CNA), and Certified Medication Aide, were seen handling glasses by the drinking rim surface while serving 14 residents in the dining area. Additionally, desserts were not properly covered during transport to resident rooms, with two desserts partially covered and one not covered at all. The facility lacked a policy on dining or food handling, as confirmed by the Administrator and the Food Service Supervisor, who stated that staff were expected not to touch the food on plates or bowls and to cover all items on trays for in-room dining. Further observations revealed that a door greeter and a cook also handled cups by the drinking rim surface while serving residents. A CNA was seen serving a coffee cup by placing their palm over the open surface of the cup, with all fingers and thumb on the drinking surface. Another staff member served two cups in a similar manner. Additionally, a room tray delivered to a resident had milk and dessert that were not covered during transport from the dining room to the resident's room.
Medication Administration Error
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer the appropriate dose of medication to a resident, leading to a medication error. Resident #17, who had no cognitive impairment and was diagnosed with hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy, and intellectual disabilities, was observed receiving a 10 mg tablet of Lisinopril instead of the prescribed 5 mg dose. This error occurred despite the physician's order to decrease the dose due to low blood pressure. The resident's care plan also lacked direction for monitoring signs and symptoms of hypotension and medication side effects. Staff E, an LPN, confirmed administering the incorrect dose for 18 consecutive days, from 3/9 to 3/26. The error was acknowledged by the Director of Nursing (DON), who noted that the fax to the pharmacy for the new dose was never sent. The DON also explained that staff are expected to double-check the resident's name, order, MAR, and medication card before passing medications. The facility lacked a policy on medication administration, which contributed to the oversight.
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 72 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — 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 Allison
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarksville Skilled Nursing & Rehab Center | 6.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Ams Memorial-greene | 9.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Shell Rock Senior Living | 11.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 13 | 0 |
| Maple Manor Village | 12.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Woodland Terrace | 15.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Rehabilitation Center Of Allison.
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.