Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Elevate Care Country Club Hill during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to ensure low air loss mattresses were set and monitored according to resident weight and physician orders for two residents with pressure ulcers. One resident with a sacral wound and cognitive impairment was observed on a mattress set for a higher weight range than the resident’s reported weight, with the wound described as bruised and possibly related to pressure. Another resident receiving wound care was on a mattress set for a lower weight range than the documented weight, despite staff stating that LALM settings must match resident weight per facility policy. Physician orders to check LALM settings were not followed for these residents, even though the mattress system is intended for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
A resident with type 2 DM and related complications was found sitting in their room with an insulin-filled syringe left on the bedside table, which the resident reported had been there since the weekend. An LPN confirmed the syringe contained 20 units of insulin, acknowledged that medications and sharps should not be left in the room without a physician’s order, and that the resident was not on a self-medication program. Review of physician orders showed scheduled insulin lispro and Humalog per sliding scale, and review of the MAR showed insulin documented as given with no notation of refusal or of insulin being drawn but not administered, contrary to facility policy requiring proper documentation of medication refusals.
A resident with a history of CVA, hemiplegia, impaired balance, and documented need for supervision with sliding-board transfers and assistance for LB dressing activated the call light and waited an extended period without staff response. The resident, identified as high fall risk by a leaf symbol, independently retrieved clothing from the closet, transferred using a sliding board without supervision, and dressed himself incompletely, while staff later acknowledged that such a wait time and lack of response were inappropriate. Review of the MDS, care plan, OT discharge summary, and facility policies on call lights, comprehensive care planning, and fall prevention showed that required fall-prevention interventions and supervision were not implemented as planned, resulting in a deficiency related to accident hazards and inadequate supervision.
A resident with cerebral palsy, vascular dementia, reduced mobility, and high fall risk was care planned as dependent for transfers, requiring two-person assist with gait belt and use of a full-body or Hoyer lift. Multiple assessments documented the need for two staff for chair/bed to chair transfers and ADLs. Despite this, the resident was transferred from bed to wheelchair by a single CNA, with the wheelchair improperly positioned and the resident lifted under the arms and then released on one side, causing the resident—who had left-sided weakness and was wearing an AFO brace—to slide to the floor and sustain a left tibia-fibula fracture requiring hospitalization. Staff interviews revealed that nursing staff were unaware of or did not follow the documented two-person transfer interventions, even though facility policies required implementation of fall prevention measures and adherence to the plan of care.
A dependent resident with DM, anemia, hemiplegia, and reduced mobility developed a facility-acquired right great toe hematoma that later was found to be infected and fractured. The resident had an order for daily wound care and weekly shower/skin assessments, but shower sheets showed missed showers, occasional bed baths, and no documented skin assessments, with entries mostly marked refused. When the surveyor observed the resident, the toe had no dressing and the resident indicated she no longer received dressing care. Staff gave inconsistent accounts about the wound, refusals, and family-reported injury, and the resident later required urgent care and antibiotics for cellulitis and a toe fracture.
Medication Not Administered as Ordered: A resident with multiple complex diagnoses, including respiratory failure, encephalopathy, hospice care, and diabetes, had an order for lorazepam 0.5 mg tablets to be given as 2 tablets every 6 hours for anxiety and agitation. The MAR and controlled drug record showed that staff documented the dose as given as ordered, but only 1 tablet was actually administered for several days instead of the ordered 2 tablets. An LPN and the DON both acknowledged that the medication should have been given as ordered.
A resident admitted to hospice care experienced untreated pain due to the facility's failure to transcribe physician orders for comfort care medications. Despite the availability of morphine, the absence of a written order in the electronic health record delayed pain management until the Director of Nursing intervened. The deficiency highlights a lapse in following established protocols for documenting and processing physician orders.
A resident with malignant colon cancer did not receive prescribed hospice medications due to a failure to transcribe orders into their electronic health record. The resident's representative raised concerns about the resident's pain to the facility's administrator via email, but the grievance was not documented or addressed, violating the facility's grievance policy.
A resident, who is nonverbal and fully dependent on staff for ADLs, fell from bed during incontinence care due to inadequate assistance, resulting in a head laceration requiring hospital treatment. The facility lacked a resident safety policy, and staff interviews indicated that the CNA should have pulled the resident closer to prevent the fall.
A resident with reduced mobility and incontinence developed a pressure injury on the coccyx, progressing from Stage 2 to Stage 3 within a week. Despite being assessed as at-risk and having a care plan to prevent skin pressure, the resident's dissatisfaction with night shift care and the progression of the injury indicate a lapse in care practices.
Two residents in a facility were victims of physical abuse by staff. One resident, with a history of cerebral palsy and dementia, reported being abused by CNAs, resulting in injuries requiring hospital evaluation. Another resident, with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, was slapped by an NP, who admitted fault. The facility's policy mandates abuse prevention training for staff, but the NP, part of an external group, did not receive such training.
A resident with a penile prosthesis in an erectile position for twenty-two days was admitted to the facility with an opening on the penile shaft and excoriation on the penile head/tip. The facility failed to implement a treatment plan, leading to the resident developing a full-thickness moisture-associated skin dermatitis (MASD). The treatment nurse was unaware of how to manage the condition, and the assistant director of nursing confirmed that no treatment was in place upon admission. The wound doctor noted the need for monitoring and surgery, but the resident was discharged before any resolution.
A facility failed to identify and treat pressure ulcers for a high-risk resident with complex medical conditions, leading to advanced-stage ulcers. Despite the resident's care plan indicating a high risk for skin breakdown, staff did not consistently report or address new skin openings promptly. Discrepancies in documentation and delayed treatment were noted, with pressure sites found during treatment of other wounds, indicating inadequate proactive skin assessments.
Improper Low Air Loss Mattress Settings and Monitoring for Residents With Pressure Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper use and monitoring of low air loss mattresses (LALM) for two residents with pressure ulcers, including not setting the mattresses according to the residents’ actual weights and not following physician orders to check the LALM settings. During wound care observation for one cognitively impaired resident with a sacral wound, the resident was found on a LALM set between 130 and 180 pounds, while staff reported the resident’s weight as between 120 and 125 pounds. The wound on the sacrum had a reddish color around the wound bed and a blackish color in the center, and the Wound Care Director stated the wound site was bruised and that it might be from pressure at the site. When asked, the Wound Care Director acknowledged that the resident would benefit from repositioning and pressure relief. In a separate observation of wound care for another resident, the resident was on a LALM set between 80 and 130 pounds, and both the Wound Care Director and Wound Care Nurse stated that LALM settings should be based on the resident’s weight. The resident stated their weight was about 120 pounds, and the Wound Care Director initially stated the setting was correct, but later review of the medical record showed the resident’s documented weight was 136 pounds. The DON confirmed that facility policy is to set the LALM according to the resident’s weight, and the electronic physician orders for both residents included an order to check the LALM settings, which was not followed. Subsequent observation showed the second resident’s LALM remained set between 80 and 130 pounds, while the Wound Care Director stated it should be set between 130 and 180 pounds. The facility’s LALM manual described the system as intended for prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers and for 24-hour pressure area care.
Insulin Syringe Left at Bedside and Not Secured per Medication Storage Requirements
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that insulin was stored in a locked medication cart when not under the nurse’s direct visual supervision, and failure to follow policy prohibiting medications at the bedside without a physician’s order. One resident with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus with foot ulcer, other acute osteomyelitis of the right ankle and foot, type 2 diabetes with hyperglycemia, and anemia was observed sitting in a wheelchair in their room, where an insulin syringe containing liquid solution was noted on the bedside table. The resident stated that the syringe contained insulin and that the nurse had left it on the table since the weekend and no one had come to pick it up. The resident’s MDS indicated a BIMS score of 15, cognitively intact. When the syringe was shown to an LPN, the nurse identified the solution as 20 units of insulin and acknowledged that it should not have been left on the table. The LPN stated that no medication should be left at the bedside without a doctor’s order and confirmed that the resident was not on a self-medication administration program, also acknowledging that staff are not supposed to leave medications and sharps in the room. Review of the physician’s orders showed scheduled insulin lispro 16 units subcutaneously with meals three times a day and Humalog per sliding scale. Review of the MAR for the relevant dates showed insulin documented as given, with no documentation of refusal or that insulin had been drawn up and not administered. The facility’s medication administration policy requires safe and effective administration and documentation of refusals on the MAR, but there was no such documentation related to this insulin dose.
Failure to Implement Fall-Prevention Interventions and Timely Call-Light Response
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement fall-prevention interventions and provide timely response to a call device for a resident identified as at risk for falls. On the morning of 03/20/2026, the call device monitoring screen at the nurses’ station showed that the call device in this resident’s room and bed had been activated for 24 minutes. A leaf symbol was displayed beside the resident’s name, indicating high fall risk. Despite the active call device, the resident was not in the room when checked and was later observed seated in a wheelchair across from the nurses’ station wearing gray pants that were not fully pulled up, with his incontinence brief visible. The resident reported he had been waiting 30–40 minutes for staff to respond to his call device. He stated he became impatient, retrieved pants from his closet himself, and put them on without being able to pull them all the way up. He also stated he still needed help putting on socks and was wearing shoes without socks. The resident further reported that no one supervised him while he transferred himself using a sliding board and that no one assisted him in getting his pants from the closet. A CNA confirmed that the leaf symbol by the resident’s name signified fall risk and acknowledged that a resident should not wait 24–40 minutes for assistance, and that if the resident activated the call device, staff should have answered it so the resident would not attempt to get items independently. Record review showed the resident had a history of stroke with hemiplegia affecting the left non-dominant side, contractures in both knees, and used a wheelchair as the primary mobility device. The MDS documented that he required partial/moderate assistance for lower body dressing. An OT discharge summary indicated he had achieved the goal of performing lower body dressing with supervision or touching assistance. The care plan documented that he had ADL self-care performance deficits related to hemiplegia, impaired balance, and limited ROM, used a sliding board for transfers, and required supervision for transfers with the sliding board. Another care plan focus identified him as at high risk for falls related to deconditioning, history of falls, and impulsive behavior, with interventions including reminding and encouraging him to call for assistance and keeping the call light within reach. Facility policies required timely response to call lights, development and implementation of a comprehensive care plan, and a fall prevention program with appropriate supervision and use of transfer devices. Despite these documented needs and policies, the resident’s call device was not answered promptly, and he transferred and dressed himself without required supervision, constituting the failure to implement fall-prevention interventions for a resident at risk for falls.
Failure to Follow Two-Person Transfer and Lift Requirements Resulting in Fracture
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement fall prevention measures and follow the resident’s care plan for transfer assistance. A resident with extensive medical and functional impairments, including cerebral palsy, spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy, vascular dementia, reduced mobility, prior left fibula fracture, and multiple psychiatric diagnoses, was care planned as dependent for transfers and requiring two-person assistance. Multiple assessments and care plans documented that the resident was at high fall risk and required substantial to total assistance: the post-fall observation assessment identified a high fall risk; Section GG assessments and functional abilities assessments documented that chair/bed to chair transfers and putting on/taking off footwear required two staff assist; and care plans dated 1/8/24, 1/24/25, and 4/30/24 specified moderate to substantial assist x2 with gait belt for all transfers due to increased weakness and behaviors, mechanical Hoyer lift x2 for transfers, and use of a full body lift with two-person assist for all transfers. Despite these documented needs and interventions, on the date of the incident the resident was transferred by only one certified nurse aide from bed to wheelchair. The resident reported that the wheelchair was not positioned correctly, that the aide grabbed her under the arms, stood her up, then let go from her left side, causing her to slide down to the floor. The resident, who had left-sided weakness and was wearing a left Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) brace, stated she heard a cracking sound when she slid to the floor and immediately reported leg pain. The facility-reported incident documented that the resident was found sitting on the floor with her back to the bed and legs flat on the floor and that she sustained a left tibia-fibula fracture, for which she was hospitalized and treated. Interviews with staff showed a lack of awareness and adherence to the resident’s care plan and fall prevention interventions. A registered nurse on duty at the time of the fall stated she was unsure of the resident’s transfer status prior to the fall and confirmed that only one staff member assisted with the transfer when the resident fell and sustained a fracture. An LPN stated she was not aware of the fall care plan intervention requiring two-person transfer due to increased weakness and behaviors. Another RN stated that care plan interventions are to be followed for all residents, and the DON and Administrator both stated their expectations that care plans be updated as needed and followed by staff. Facility policies on the Fall Prevention Program and on transfer/manual gait belt and mechanical lifts required assessment of transfer needs, documentation in the care plan, and use of transfer conveyances and mechanical lifts according to the plan of care, but these were not implemented for this resident at the time of the incident.
Failure to Complete Ordered Shower and Skin Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary assistance for a dependent resident by not completing the ordered weekly shower and skin assessments for a right great toe wound. The resident was a female with a history that included hypertensive heart disease, dysphagia, reduced mobility, type 2 diabetes, anemia, and hemiplegia/hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side. She was dependent on staff for all ADLs and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. An active physician order required cleansing the right great toe wound, applying betadine, covering it with a dry dressing daily and as needed, and completing weekly showers/skin assessments with acknowledgement of completion and notification of the physician and family if a new skin issue was found. The resident developed a facility-acquired hematoma to the right great toe, documented as a blood-filled blister. The care plan identified the toe wound and noted risk for delayed wound healing and further alteration in skin integrity. However, shower sheets for September, October, and November showed the resident was not receiving showers as scheduled, had occasional bed baths, and had no documented skin assessments, with entries marked mostly as refused. When the surveyor observed the resident, the right great toe had no dressing, was dry, and had whitish discoloration near the nail bed, and the resident indicated she no longer received dressing care to the toe. The resident later went to urgent care after family removed her socks and discovered the toe injury, and the urgent care record documented pain, cellulitis of the right toe, and an acute nondisplaced intra-articular fracture of the distal phalanx of the right great toe. She was prescribed clindamycin for seven days. Staff interviews showed inconsistent understanding of the injury and care: the Wound Care Coordinator said nurses were supposed to sign the skin assessment section after showers if the resident allowed it, but was unsure about documenting refusals; the DON said the resident always refused ADL care and was not sure if that was care planned; the Administrator said the injury was investigated as unknown origin; and an LPN said the family reported the infection and fracture only after urgent care, but she did not document the reported incident.
Medication Not Administered as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer medication as ordered for one resident, R77, who was admitted with diagnoses including acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, metabolic encephalopathy, hospice care, reduced mobility, pressure induced deep tissue damage, pacemaker presence, atrial fibrillation, and type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy. R77 had a physician order dated 11/13/2025 for Ativan (lorazepam) 0.5 mg tablets, to give 2 tablets by mouth every 6 hours for anxiety and agitation, for a total dose of 1 mg. The MAR and controlled drug record showed that although the medication was documented as if 2 tablets had been administered, from 11/14/2025 at 6:00 p.m. until 11/18/2025 at 12:00 noon, only 1 tablet was actually given instead of the ordered 2 tablets. During interview, an LPN stated that nurses were supposed to give 2 tablets to equal 1 mg and that medications should be signed out after the resident takes them. The DON stated that medications should be given as ordered by the physician or NP and acknowledged that the nurses were not giving the resident the ordered 2 tablets, describing it as an error on the nurse's part.
Failure to Transcribe Hospice Orders Leads to Untreated Pain
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to transcribe physician orders for comfort care medications for a resident who was admitted to hospice care services. This deficiency resulted in the resident experiencing untreated pain for several days before passing away in the facility. The resident, who had been diagnosed with malignant colon cancer, was admitted to hospice services following a hospitalization for adult failure to thrive. Upon returning to the facility, the resident's orders for hospice services were not properly transcribed, leading to a delay in administering necessary pain relief medications. The resident's representative reported that during a visit, they observed the resident in visible pain and sought assistance from the nursing staff. However, the nurse on duty was unable to administer morphine due to the absence of a written order in the electronic health record. It was only after the Director of Nursing intervened that the order was obtained and the medication was administered. Despite the availability of the medication, the lack of proper documentation and transcription of orders prevented timely pain management for the resident. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the hospice nurse had confirmed medication orders with the facility nurse on duty, but these orders were not transcribed into the electronic health record. The facility's policy for transcribing physician orders was not followed, as evidenced by the absence of the hospice orders in the resident's records. The failure to adhere to established protocols for documenting and processing physician orders contributed to the resident's prolonged discomfort and inadequate pain management during their final days.
Failure to Address Grievance and Transcribe Hospice Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its grievance policy by not acknowledging a concern raised by a resident's representative. The resident, who had been admitted with malignant colon cancer, experienced a sudden decline in health and was subsequently placed under hospice care. Upon returning to the facility, hospice orders were not transcribed into the resident's electronic health record, resulting in the resident not receiving prescribed comfort medications. This oversight led to the resident experiencing significant pain before passing away. The resident's representative expressed these concerns to the facility's administrator via email, but the facility did not document or address the grievance. The administrator claimed to be unaware of any concerns related to the resident and had not received any documented grievances since the resident's passing. The facility's grievance policy requires that all grievances, regardless of how they are communicated, be documented and addressed promptly. However, the facility did not follow this policy, as evidenced by the lack of a grievance form for the concern raised by the resident's representative.
Failure to Provide Adequate Assistance Leads to Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure resident safety by not providing the required two-person assistance to a totally dependent resident, identified as R121, during incontinence care. This oversight resulted in R121 falling from the bed, leading to a head laceration that required hospital evaluation and the application of three staples. The incident occurred while a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was providing care, and the resident began to slide off the bed. The CNA called for assistance, but the resident had already fallen, sustaining a moderate scalp laceration. R121 is a nonverbal resident with significant medical needs, including a tracheostomy and gastrostomy tube, and is entirely dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) and mobility. The resident's medical history includes anoxic brain damage, chronic respiratory failure, and contractures in all extremities, making her at high risk for falls and related injuries. The facility's assessment indicated that R121 required assistance from two caregivers for bed mobility and personal hygiene tasks. Interviews with facility staff revealed that there was no policy on resident safety, and the CNA involved in the incident acknowledged that she should have pulled the resident closer to her rather than rolling her away, which placed the resident at risk of falling. The facility's existing fall prevention program emphasizes the need for adequate supervision and the use of assistive devices, but it appears that these measures were not adequately implemented in this case.
Failure to Prevent Pressure Injury in At-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent the development of a pressure injury in a resident identified as at-risk due to reduced mobility and incontinence. Upon admission, the resident had a surgical wound from a right above-the-knee amputation, with no other wounds documented. However, a shower sheet dated 12 days later indicated an open sore in the coccyx area. The Wound Coordinator LPN confirmed that the resident was assessed as at risk for pressure injuries and was found to have a Stage 2 pressure injury on the coccyx, which progressed to Stage 3 within a week. The resident, who was alert and oriented, expressed dissatisfaction with not being changed by the night shift, as reported by a CNA. The resident's care plan included interventions to prevent skin pressure areas, but the development of the pressure injury suggests these interventions were not effectively implemented. The wound assessment and physician notes confirmed the progression of the pressure injury, highlighting a lapse in the facility's care practices for this resident.
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse by Staff
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from physical abuse by staff, affecting two residents. The first resident, a female with a complex medical history including cerebral palsy and dementia, reported being physically abused by two CNAs. She sustained swelling and redness to her left eye and bruising on her right hand, which led to her being transferred to a hospital to rule out an orbital fracture. The incident was reported to the police, and the resident identified the CNAs as the perpetrators. Medical staff and facility personnel confirmed the resident's injuries and her allegations of abuse. The second resident, an elderly male with a history of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, was involved in an incident where he was slapped by a nurse practitioner (NP). The resident was noted with redness on his face but denied pain. The NP admitted to the police that she was at fault, citing personal issues as a contributing factor. The facility's investigation concluded that the NP was aggressive towards the resident, and she was subsequently removed from the facility. The NP had not received abuse training from the facility, as she was part of an external provider group. The facility's abuse prevention policy states that residents have the right to be free from abuse and that new employees should receive training on abuse prevention. However, the NP involved in the second incident did not receive such training, as the facility did not consider her a staff member. This lack of training and oversight contributed to the failure to protect the residents from abuse, as evidenced by the incidents involving the two residents.
Failure to Implement Treatment Plan for Resident with Penile Prosthesis
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a treatment plan for a resident identified as very high risk for skin breakdown, who was admitted with an opening on the penile shaft and excoriation on the penile head/tip, with a penile prosthesis in an erectile position for twenty-two days. The treatment nurse was unaware of how to manage the resident's condition, including the proper placement of the adult brief to prevent friction. The resident developed a facility-acquired full-thickness moisture-associated skin dermatitis (MASD) measuring 8.00 cm x 3.00 cm x 0.10 cm. The assistant director of nursing acknowledged that no treatment was in place upon admission, and the doctor was not notified immediately, nor was the site measured upon admission. The wound doctor noted that the facility should have been monitoring the resident for any skin breakdown, and the resident required surgery. Hospital referral paperwork indicated the prosthesis was left in a semirigid position. A nursing note and physician order sheet dated 3/11/24 documented the presence of a pressure injury and the initiation of wound care. The wound doctor visit on 3/14/24 recorded a partial thickness abrasion that had not healed. The facility's failure to implement timely and appropriate treatment resulted in the resident sustaining a significant skin injury.
Failure to Identify and Treat Pressure Ulcers in High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to identify and treat pressure ulcers for a resident who was dependent on staff for care, resulting in the development of advanced-stage pressure ulcers. The resident, who had multiple complex medical conditions including anoxic brain damage, respiratory failure, and end-stage renal disease, was admitted to the facility with a high risk for skin breakdown. Despite this, the facility did not adequately monitor or document the resident's skin condition, leading to the discovery of multiple pressure ulcers at advanced stages during routine care. The resident's care plan indicated a high risk for skin issues, yet the facility's staff did not consistently report or address new skin openings in a timely manner. The report details several instances where the resident's pressure ulcers were not identified until they had progressed significantly. For example, a deep tissue injury on the sacrum was not documented until it was unstageable, and a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the left elbow was not treated until two days after it was first noted. Additionally, discrepancies in documentation were noted, such as differing reports on the number and location of open areas on the resident's body. The facility's wound care nurse acknowledged that the pressure sites were found during treatment of other wounds, indicating a lack of proactive skin assessments. This deficiency highlights a failure in the facility's processes for monitoring and managing pressure ulcers in high-risk 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 1,493 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 16 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 Country Club Hills
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pine Crest Health Care | 2.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 21 | 0 |
| Generations At Applewood | 3.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
| Frankfort Terrace | 4.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Prairie Manor Nrsg & Rehab Ctr | 4.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 14 | 0 |
| Aliya Of Homewood | 4.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Elevate Care Country Club Hill.
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.