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 Clark Manor during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with intact cognition alleged that a CNA struck him on the forehead with a bed remote after becoming upset, resulting in a laceration requiring stitches. Although the resident reported the incident to nursing staff and the nurse practitioner documented the allegation, none of the staff reported it to facility administration as required by abuse policy.
Multiple residents reported frequent sightings of mice in their rooms, and direct observations confirmed the presence of mouse droppings in several areas, including behind furniture and near heating units. Despite a facility policy requiring an effective pest control process, the ongoing rodent issue was evident on three of four resident floors.
A resident was physically struck in the face by a roommate during an argument over television volume, with staff intervening only after the incident occurred. Both residents were cognitively intact, and the altercation resulted in the aggressor being separated and sent for psychiatric evaluation. The facility failed to ensure protection from abuse as required by policy.
A resident with a history of mental health issues sustained a minor scratch during an altercation with another resident on the smoking patio. The incident involved inappropriate behavior by one resident, leading to a physical confrontation. Staff intervened by separating the residents, notifying the police, and sending both to the hospital for evaluation. The facility reported the incident to the State Agency and initiated an investigation.
A resident with a Quick Release Seat Belt in a wheelchair was unable to release it independently due to improper securing, and the facility failed to assess the need for the restraint or document it correctly in the MDS. The resident, with a history of conditions increasing fall risk, was not shown how to release the belt, and the MDS was incorrectly coded, indicating no restraints were in use.
The facility failed to accurately document and treat wounds for three residents, leading to deficiencies in wound care management. One resident's wound was observed without a dressing, contrary to physician orders, and another resident's wound assessment lacked measurements. Additionally, a treatment was documented for a resident who was hospitalized, indicating a false entry. These issues highlight lapses in documentation and adherence to care plans.
The facility failed to maintain sufficient staffing levels on weekends, affecting all 245 residents. Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) data showed discrepancies in staffing levels compared to the facility's Daily Nursing Staff Report. Interviews confirmed that the facility did not meet its staffing plan, leading to insufficient staffing on weekends.
The facility failed to ensure proper labeling and dating of food items, maintain cleanliness in food storage areas, conduct appropriate hand hygiene, and correctly thaw frozen meat. Mold was found on food items and refrigerator seals, and improper handwashing and thawing practices were observed, potentially affecting all 242 residents.
The facility failed to ensure that dumpster lids were properly closed, leading to potential pest issues. Surveyors observed multiple instances where dumpster lids were left wide open or propped open with garbage, despite empty sections being available. Both the Visiting Food Service Manager and the Housekeeping Director acknowledged the importance of keeping the lids closed to prevent pests and disease.
The facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity by not serving meals simultaneously to all residents at the same table. Several residents were observed watching others eat for up to 20 minutes before receiving their own meals. Staff acknowledged the issue, citing meal tray organization by room as the cause.
The facility failed to prevent the development and worsening of pressure ulcers by not following provider orders, adding multiple layers on low air loss mattresses, and not providing adequate supervision for low air loss devices. Observations revealed residents using multiple layers on mattresses, an unplugged mattress, and a resident not using ordered heel protectors, increasing the risk of skin breakdown.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and limited mobility was unable to access their call light, which was clipped to an unreachable position on their pillow. Staff members acknowledged the issue and adjusted the call light, but the initial placement compromised the resident's ability to call for help.
A facility failed to protect a resident's confidential information when an LPN left a computer screen displaying the resident's personal and medical details visible in a main hallway. The LPN admitted the oversight, and the ADON and administrators confirmed the importance of following privacy protocols.
The facility failed to initiate a new Level I PASARR screen for a resident with Schizoaffective Disorder Bipolar Type before the expiration of the short-term approval. The Social Services Director was unaware of the specific requirements and timeframes, leading to a delay in obtaining the necessary Level II PASARR screening.
A facility failed to follow a physician's order for a resident's gastrostomy tube feeding rate, administering 55 ml/hr instead of the prescribed 75 ml/hr. This error persisted despite the resident's significant weight loss and reliance on tube feeding for nutrition, as confirmed by the registered nurse, Director of Nursing, and registered dietitian.
The facility failed to follow its policy on controlled drug count by not accurately counting and reconciling controlled medication records/logs for three residents. Medications were not signed off immediately after administration, leading to discrepancies in counts. Additionally, a resident's Morphine Sulfate was found without proper logging, and the nurse on duty was unaware of its administration or prescription status.
The facility failed to prevent and protect residents from resident-to-resident physical abuse, resulting in one resident sustaining a facial laceration and another reporting being struck on the ear. Both incidents involved residents with documented histories of aggressive behavior.
Failure to Report Resident Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its abuse policy and procedure when staff did not report an allegation of physical abuse made by a resident. The resident, who was cognitively intact, reported that a CNA became angry after the resident pressed the call light multiple times, took the bed control remote, and hit the resident on the forehead. The resident stated that after the incident, he called the nurse for help but was not believed. The resident was subsequently sent to the emergency room and received stitches for a forehead laceration. The incident was not reported to the facility's abuse coordinator or administration as required by policy. Interviews with the CNA and RN involved revealed that the resident was resistant to care and that the injury occurred when the resident pulled the bed remote from the CNA, causing it to hit his forehead. Both staff members acknowledged that the resident accused the CNA of hitting him, but neither reported the allegation to facility administration. The nurse practitioner also documented the resident's report of being hit by staff but did not report the allegation to the administrator. The facility's policy requires immediate reporting of all abuse allegations to the administrator and to the state within two hours, which did not occur in this case.
Failure to Maintain Effective Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in the presence of mice and mouse droppings on three of four resident floors. Multiple residents reported seeing mice in their rooms, both during the day and at night, and described repeated encounters with rodents even after being moved to different rooms. Observations confirmed the presence of mouse droppings in several resident rooms, including behind bedside cabinets, under heating/air conditioning units, next to beds, and near windows. In one instance, a hole was observed next to a heating/air register at the baseboard, which could serve as a potential entry point for rodents. Residents expressed discomfort and dissatisfaction with the ongoing rodent issue, with some specifically noting their dislike of mouse traps in their rooms. The facility's own pest control policy, revised in August 2024, states that there should be an effective pest control process in place to ensure the building is free of pests. Despite this policy, the documented observations and resident interviews indicate that the facility did not effectively prevent or address the rodent infestation.
Failure to Protect Resident from Physical Abuse by Roommate
Penalty
Summary
A resident reported being physically struck in the face by a roommate during a disagreement over television volume. The incident occurred while both residents were in their shared room, with the aggressor standing close to the other resident and making contact with his fist to the left cheek and part of the nose. The resident who was struck also reported being threatened by the roommate as he was escorted out of the room. The incident was witnessed by staff who responded to the altercation after hearing noise and attempted to separate the residents. Initial assessments found no visible injuries on the resident who was struck. The involved residents both had cognitive assessments indicating they were cognitively intact. The resident who was struck had a history of chronic medical and psychiatric conditions, including heart failure, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms. The aggressor had a history of hemiplegia, alcohol abuse, and liver disease. Staff interviews and documentation indicated that the altercation was preceded by an argument about television volume, and that staff intervened after the incident had already occurred. There was no indication that staff were aware of escalating tension prior to the physical contact. Facility records and staff statements confirmed that the residents were separated following the incident, and the aggressor was sent for psychiatric evaluation. The facility's abuse and neglect policy defines abuse as the willful infliction of mistreatment or injury, including actions that result in harm even if not intended. The deficiency was identified due to the facility's failure to ensure that residents were protected from abuse by another resident, as required by policy and regulation.
Resident Altercation Results in Minor Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse, resulting in a physical altercation between two residents. One resident, a male with a history of Parkinsonism, COPD, Schizoaffective Disorder, Diabetes 2, and Alcohol Abuse, sustained a superficial scratch near his eye after an incident on the smoking patio. The altercation occurred when another resident, diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and other conditions, urinated on the first resident's leg, leading to a physical confrontation. The affected resident reported the incident to the staff, who then called the police and separated the residents. Both residents were sent to the hospital for evaluation, and the incident was reported to the State Agency. The facility's policy on abuse and neglect emphasizes providing care in an environment free from abuse and neglect. However, the incident highlights a failure to ensure this policy was upheld. The resident who sustained the scratch expressed that he felt safe and did not wish to press charges, acknowledging the other resident's illness. Despite the lack of significant injury, the incident was documented, and the facility initiated an investigation. The staff responded by providing one-on-one monitoring and notifying relevant parties, including the police and the residents' families.
Improper Use and Documentation of Restraints
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's self-releasing seat belt was secured in a manner that allowed the resident to freely release the belt. The resident, identified as R1, was provided with a Quick Release Seat Belt to prevent falls due to poor posture while sitting in a wheelchair. However, the belt was connected in a way that was out of the resident's view and reach, making it difficult for the resident to release it independently. The resident expressed that they were not shown how to release the belt and found it tight and unyielding. Additionally, the facility did not complete an assessment for the need for a restraint for R1. The report indicates that the restorative nurse was unaware of the requirement for a physical restraint assessment. The MDS Section P, which should document the use of restraints, was incorrectly coded as indicating no restraints were in use, despite the presence of the Quick Release Belt. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged the error and the lack of proper assessment or evaluation for the restraint. The facility's policy on restraints requires an assessment to determine the appropriateness of a restraint device, a physician's order, and regular evaluation of the restraint's necessity. However, these procedures were not followed, as evidenced by the lack of a proper assessment and incorrect documentation in the MDS. The resident's medical history includes conditions such as Chronic Kidney Disease, Diabetes Insipidus, and Schizoaffective Disorder, which contribute to their high fall risk and need for careful management of mobility aids.
Deficiencies in Wound Care Management and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate documentation and treatment of wounds for three residents, leading to deficiencies in wound care management. For one resident with dementia and xerosis cutis, the facility did not accurately document the location of a wound on the right posterior knee, and the wound was observed without a dressing, contrary to physician orders. The wound care coordinator acknowledged that the dressing should have been reapplied, but the CNA did not notify them when it came off. Additionally, the treatment administration record showed the last dressing change was documented three days prior, with no PRN entries recorded. Another resident with dementia and xerosis cutis had a laceration on the right 5th finger, but the initial wound assessment lacked measurements and a detailed description. The wound care coordinator admitted that the assessment should have included measurements, indicating a lapse in thorough documentation. This oversight in documentation could potentially affect the quality of care provided to the resident. A third resident with morbid obesity, xerosis cutis, and cellulitis of the left lower limb had a documented treatment administration for a wound on the left calf while the resident was hospitalized, indicating a false entry in the treatment administration record. The wound care coordinator acknowledged this as a mistake. These deficiencies highlight the facility's failure to adhere to its wound care policy, which mandates accurate documentation and implementation of care plans in compliance with regulatory standards.
Insufficient Weekend Staffing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to have sufficient staffing on weekends, affecting all 245 residents. The Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) data revealed that weekend staffing was excessively low. Specific dates reviewed included 10/15/2023, 11/04/2023, 11/05/2023, and 12/17/2023, showing discrepancies between the PBJ report and the facility's Daily Nursing Staff Report. For instance, on 10/15/2023, the PBJ report documented 23 licensed nurses with total hours of 182.25, while the Daily Nursing Staff Report documented 24 nurses with total hours of 186. Similar discrepancies were noted on other reviewed dates. Interviews with the Assistant Administrator and Staffing Coordinator confirmed that the facility was not meeting its staffing plan. The Staffing Coordinator stated that there should be nine nurses on the 7am-3pm shift, nine nurses on the 3pm-11pm shift, and five nurses on the 11pm-7am shift, totaling 23 nurses in a 24-hour period. However, the PBJ data indicated that the actual staffing levels were lower than required, leading to insufficient staffing on weekends.
Deficiencies in Food Handling and Hygiene Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper labeling and dating of food items, maintain cleanliness in food storage areas, conduct appropriate hand hygiene, and correctly thaw frozen meat. During an initial kitchen tour, it was observed that an opened gallon of coleslaw dressing had mold around the lid despite being within the use-by date. Additionally, a 5-pound bag of shredded mozzarella cheese was found without any labeling or dating, making it impossible to determine its safety for use. Mold was also found in the folds of the refrigerator door seal, and an opened container of Worcestershire sauce in the dry storage area lacked an opened date, leading to its disposal due to potential bacterial growth. In the dish machine area, a dietary aide was observed handling both dirty and clean items without performing hand hygiene in between, which was confirmed by the Culinary Development Specialist as a breach of protocol. The dish machine area was understaffed, with only two people working instead of the required three, leading to improper handwashing practices. The Regional Director of Operations confirmed that handwashing is necessary to prevent cross-contamination when handling both dirty and clean items. Additionally, improper thawing practices were observed when a large plastic bag containing meat was left in a sink filled with water without running cold water over it. The Kitchen Supervisor acknowledged that the meat should be defrosted under cold running water to prevent it from reaching the danger zone temperature. These deficiencies in food handling, storage, and hygiene practices have the potential to affect all 242 residents receiving food prepared in the facility's kitchen.
Improper Disposal of Garbage and Refuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the dumpster lids were properly closed to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests, insects, and rodents. On multiple occasions, surveyors observed that the lids of the dumpsters were left wide open. Specifically, on one occasion, one of the four lids of the north-facing dumpster was observed to be wide open. On another occasion, one of the four lids of the south-facing dumpster was also found to be wide open. Additionally, the south-facing dumpster had one of its lids propped open with garbage and boxes, despite the rest of the dumpster being completely empty. This indicated that the staff did not properly distribute the trash to allow the lids to be fully closed. Both the Visiting Food Service Manager and the Housekeeping Director acknowledged that the lids should be closed to prevent pests from accessing the garbage and potentially spreading disease. The Housekeeping Director also noted that the staff should have used the empty sections of the dumpster to ensure the lids could be closed properly. The facility's kitchen policy also mandates that all trash should be properly disposed of in external receptacles, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Serve Meals Simultaneously to Residents at the Same Table
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were treated with respect and dignity by not passing out meals to all residents sitting at a table at the same time. This deficiency was observed during a dining period where several residents were left without food while others at the same table were eating. Specifically, residents were seen watching their tablemates eat for several minutes before receiving their own meals. This affected six residents who were part of a sample of 35 residents reviewed during dining observations. On the day of the observation, residents were seated at tables in the dining room, and meals were not distributed simultaneously to all residents at the same table. For instance, one resident began eating at 12:35 PM, while others at the same table did not receive their meals until up to 20 minutes later. Staff members, including an Activity Aide and Certified Nursing Assistants, acknowledged that meals are typically served table by table but noted that the trays were organized by room, not dining location, which led to the delay. The Regional Director of Operations and the Registered Dietitian both confirmed that this practice was a dignity issue, as it is inappropriate for residents to watch others eat while they wait for their own meals. The affected residents had various medical conditions, including Parkinson's Disease, Schizoaffective Disorder, Dementia, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, among others. Their cognitive statuses ranged from intact to severely impaired, as indicated by their BIMS scores. Despite these conditions, the residents were capable of feeding themselves unassisted. The facility's Resident Admission Packet emphasizes the importance of treating each resident with respect and dignity, which was not upheld in this instance, as confirmed by the facility's staff and documented policies.
Failure to Prevent Pressure Ulcers and Follow Care Protocols
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary services consistent with professional standards to prevent the development and worsening of pressure ulcers. Specifically, the facility did not follow provider orders for the prevention of pressure injuries for one resident, did not adhere to policy and manufacturer directions when adding multiple layers on low air loss mattresses for two residents, and did not provide adequate supervision for low air loss devices to prevent accidents for one resident. Observations revealed that residents were using multiple layers on low air loss mattresses, which can cause bed sores or worsen existing wounds. Additionally, one resident's low air loss mattress was found unplugged, and another resident's heel protectors were not being used as ordered by the physician, increasing the risk of skin breakdown. One resident was observed with multiple layers on a low air loss mattress, contrary to the manufacturer's directions and facility policy, which state that only one or two layers should be used to prevent skin breakdown. Another resident was found with an unplugged low air loss mattress, and redness was observed in the sacral area during a skin check. The facility's wound care nurse confirmed that multiple layers on air mattresses could cause additional skin breakdown and emphasized the importance of ensuring that air mattresses are functioning properly. A third resident, who was at high risk for pressure ulcer development, was observed without the ordered heel protectors while in bed. The staffing coordinator and the resident confirmed that the heel boots were only used at night, despite the physician's order for them to be worn whenever the resident was in bed. The wound nurse reiterated that the heel protectors should be on when the resident is in bed to prevent skin breakdown. The facility's policy requires adherence to physician orders, but this was not followed in the case of the heel protectors for this resident.
Resident Unable to Access Call Light
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident had access to their call light, which is essential for requesting assistance. The resident, identified as having moderate cognitive impairment and limited mobility in all four extremities, was observed lying in bed with the call light clipped to the upper right corner of their pillow, making it unreachable. When asked, the resident was unaware of the call light's location and unable to reach it when informed. The call light system consisted of a string attached to a toggle switch on the wall, with the other end clipped to the pillow, which was not accessible to the resident due to their limited mobility. Staff members, including a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a Restorative Aide, were involved in assessing and attempting to reposition the call light. The LPN acknowledged that the call light placement is usually assessed by restorative staff, and the Restorative Aide added a longer string to make the call light reachable. The Director of Nursing confirmed that all residents should have reachable call lights. Despite these procedures, the initial placement of the call light rendered it unusable for the resident, compromising their ability to call for help in emergencies.
Failure to Protect Resident's Confidential Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident's personal and confidential information. During an inspection of the medication cart on the 5th floor, an LPN was observed leaving her computer on with the screen displaying a resident's picture, medical, and personal information. The computer screen was facing the main hallway, making the information visible to staff members and residents passing by. The LPN acknowledged that she should have closed or hidden the contents of the screen to prevent a HIPAA violation but did not do so because she was not going far. The Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed that the computer screen should be closed to protect residents' privacy, as displaying their pictures and medications is a violation of their privacy. The facility's Administrator and Assistant Administrator stated that staff are educated on privacy protocols, including covering sensitive information and ensuring computer screens are not visible when unattended. The facility's policy on resident rights emphasizes the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of personal and medical records.
Failure to Timely Initiate New PASARR Screening
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to initiate a new Level I PASARR screen for a resident with a known mental illness, specifically Schizoaffective Disorder Bipolar Type. The resident's Level II PASARR outcome letter indicated a short-term approval without special services, which had an expiration date. The facility's Social Services Director (V19) admitted to being unaware of the specific requirements and timeframes for submitting new PASARR screenings. V19 stated that he reviews PASARR screenings at least once a month but was not aware of the need to submit a new Level I screen 10 days before the expiration of the short-term approval. Consequently, the resident's PASARR screening expired without a new Level I screen being submitted in a timely manner, leading to a delay in obtaining the necessary Level II PASARR screening for continued care. V19 only submitted the new PASARR screening after being made aware of the requirement on the day of the interview with surveyors. The facility's policy mandates that residents with mental disorders or intellectual disabilities receive PASARR screenings within the allowed timeframe, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Follow Physician's Order for Tube Feeding Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow the physician's order for a prescribed gastrostomy tube feeding rate for a resident (R4). On multiple occasions, the tube feeding rate was set at 55 ml/hr instead of the ordered 75 ml/hr. This discrepancy was observed on 05/14/24, when the surveyor noted the incorrect rate and confirmed it with the registered nurse (V15) who was responsible for R4's care. The nurse acknowledged the error and stated that the rate should have been set at 75 ml/hr as per the physician's order updated on 05/10/24. The Director of Nursing (V3) also confirmed that the nurses are expected to follow the orders in the resident's electronic health record (EHR). The registered dietitian (V34) highlighted that the incorrect feeding rate could affect the resident's total calorie intake, which is critical since R4 had experienced significant weight loss over the past three months. R4 has a complex medical history, including conditions such as Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease, Schizoaffective Disorder, Dysphagia, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, among others. The resident is NPO (nothing by mouth) and relies entirely on tube feeding for nutrition. The physician's order to increase the feeding rate to 75 ml/hr was made to address R4's significant weight loss, which amounted to a 12.8-pound reduction over three months. Despite this, the facility's failure to adhere to the updated feeding rate order resulted in the resident receiving insufficient nutrition, as documented in the resident's care plans and medical records.
Failure to Accurately Count and Reconcile Controlled Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its policy on controlled drug count by not accurately counting and reconciling controlled medication records/logs for three residents. During an inspection, it was observed that the medication narcotic count logbook was not signed off as given for several medications administered to a resident. The counts of Lyrica, clonazepam, and Adderall did not match the narcotic sheet, and the nurse admitted to not signing off the medications immediately after administration, which is against the facility's policy. Another resident's Pregabalin count also did not match the log, and the nurse again admitted to not signing off the medication immediately after administration. The Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed that all controlled medications should be signed off immediately to prevent misuse and maintain accurate counts. Additionally, a third resident's Morphine Sulfate was found in the medication fridge without proper logging, and the nurse on duty was unaware of the medication's administration or prescription status. The Assistant Director of Nursing stated that all controlled medications should be logged and discontinued medications should be discarded to prevent errors and misuse. The facility's policy on controlled medications count requires nurses to sign off the medication sheet immediately after administration and to have another nurse witness the wasting of controlled medications if needed.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent and protect residents from resident-to-resident physical abuse, affecting two residents. One incident involved a resident (R1) who was hit in the face with a shoe by another resident (R2), resulting in a facial laceration that required four sutures. R1, who is moderately cognitively impaired, reported that R2 had verbally threatened him before the physical assault. Despite the presence of staff, the altercation escalated, and R1 was subsequently sent to the hospital for treatment. R2, who is cognitively intact, was placed on 1:1 supervision and later sent to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. R2's history of aggressive behavior and verbal abuse towards staff and roommates was documented, but the facility's abuse assessment did not accurately reflect these behaviors, potentially contributing to the incident. Another incident involved a resident (R5) who reported being struck on the left ear by another resident (R4). R4, who has a history of violent behavior and severe mental illness, was verbally and physically aggressive towards staff and residents. R4 was placed on 1:1 monitoring and sent to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. R5, who is cognitively intact, reported the incident to the social worker and called the police. The facility's staff separated the residents and assessed R5 for injuries, finding no immediate harm. R4's history of aggression and criminal behavior was well-documented, and the facility had previously noted R4's risk factors for abuse and neglect. The facility's policy on abuse and neglect emphasizes the importance of providing care in an environment free from any type of abuse. However, the incidents involving R1 and R5 indicate a failure to adequately assess, care plan, and monitor residents with behaviors that might lead to conflicts. The facility's documentation and staff interviews reveal gaps in the identification and management of residents with aggressive behaviors, leading to physical altercations and harm to other residents.
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 1,492 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 28 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 Chicago
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fargo Health Care Center | 0.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 21 | 0 |
| Birchwood Plaza | 0.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr | 0.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Waterford Care Center, The | 0.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
| Chalet Living & Rehab | 0.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 19 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Clark Manor.
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.