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 Integrity Hc Of Herrin during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident dependent on staff for toileting hygiene and with significant cognitive and physical impairments was left in visibly wet pants for several hours, despite being observed by multiple staff members. Staff did not consistently attempt alternative approaches when the resident declined care, and there was no documented policy for incontinence checks. The resident was eventually assisted and found to have redness on the buttocks and groin, indicating prolonged exposure to moisture.
Multiple residents with complex medical and mobility needs did not receive scheduled showers or timely incontinence care due to insufficient staffing, as confirmed by resident and staff interviews, facility records, and direct observation. Staff shortages led to missed or delayed care, with some residents experiencing long waits for assistance and inadequate hygiene.
Several residents with significant care needs experienced delays in call light response and assistance with toileting and bathing due to insufficient CNA staffing. Both residents and staff reported that low staffing levels led to unmet care needs, missed showers, and prolonged wait times for incontinence care.
Multiple residents with significant care needs did not receive timely assistance with ADLs, including bathing and incontinence care, due to insufficient CNA staffing. Residents and staff reported frequent delays, missed scheduled showers, and long wait times for call light responses. Staff interviews confirmed that short staffing made it difficult to meet residents' needs, and documentation of care was inconsistent.
The facility did not maintain an effective bed bug control program, as evidenced by a resident discovering bed bugs, lack of staff education on bed bug management, and absence of systematic monitoring or inspection of rooms after the initial report. Staff were not consistently informed about pest control procedures, and cleaning practices sometimes compromised treatment effectiveness. The facility's policy requiring staff training and regular inspections was not followed, putting all residents at risk.
A resident with severe cognitive impairments was involuntarily discharged to a facility over two hours away without proper notice to her family. The LTC facility failed to provide the opportunity for appeal, did not notify the ombudsman, and lacked necessary documentation, resulting in psychosocial harm to the resident.
A facility failed to implement transmission-based precautions and proper hand hygiene, leading to infection control deficiencies. A resident with COVID-19 was not encouraged to wear a mask or stay in her room, despite being on isolation precautions. Additionally, a CNA did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes during catheter care for another resident, contrary to facility policy.
The facility failed to provide a method for residents to call for assistance while in the shower stalls on both the A and B halls. Observations revealed that neither stall contained a call light or any accessible method for residents to summon help. The administrator confirmed the absence of a call system and the lack of a policy regarding call light presence, potentially affecting all 32 residents.
A dietary staff member removed plates from residents who were still eating, disrupting their dining experience. The staff member was unaware of any policy against this practice, and the facility lacked a policy on dining cleaning procedures.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary bathroom environment for residents on the B and C Halls. Observations showed a cracked and peeling shower stall floor with mold, gaps near the toilet, and black accumulation with water pooling. The men's bathroom also had dirt and debris accumulation. The administrator acknowledged the need for repair and cleaning, contrary to the facility's maintenance policy.
A resident with a history of abusive behavior physically contacted another resident, resulting in a bruise. Despite the known history, the facility failed to prevent the altercation. An initial investigation found no witnesses, but a later report confirmed the incident, leading to a substantiated abuse finding. The involved residents have cognitive and behavioral issues, highlighting a deficiency in the facility's response.
A resident reported an unwitnessed altercation with another resident, who allegedly hit her in the mouth. Despite the facility's policy requiring immediate reporting of abuse allegations, the incident was not reported to the Administrator until days later. The involved residents have complex medical histories, with one having a severe cognitive deficit and a history of impulsive behaviors.
A resident with severely impaired cognition was discharged from a facility without proper notification to their representative, V13. The Social Service Director attempted to contact V13 but did not document all attempts and only mailed a letter on the day of discharge. V13 was unaware of the transfer until contacted by the new facility, leading to frustration as the new location was much farther from his home. The facility did not follow its policies on discharge notification and failed to notify the ombudsman.
A resident with severe dementia and behavioral issues was discharged to another facility without a completed discharge summary, as required by the facility's policy. The Social Service Director was unaware of the requirement, resulting in the summary being completed months after the discharge. The facility's policy mandates that a discharge summary and post-discharge plan be developed and reviewed with the resident and family at least 24 hours before discharge.
A resident with respiratory issues did not receive prescribed medications on time, leading to a deficiency. Despite a physician's order for immediate administration of Prednisone and Duoneb, the facility delayed treatment without justification, resulting in continued respiratory distress for the resident. Staff were unable to explain the delay, and documentation was lacking.
The facility failed to provide nutritional supplements as ordered and did not follow its weight management policy for two residents. One resident experienced significant weight loss and did not receive a health shake in a consumable form, while another resident under hospice care did not receive extra dessert as prescribed. The facility's policy on weight assessment and intervention was not adhered to, leading to deficiencies in nutritional care.
Two residents with specific dietary orders did not receive the appropriate meals as prescribed by their physicians. One resident with dementia and heart failure was given a crispy rice dessert bar instead of a mechanical soft diet, leading to difficulty chewing. Another resident with dementia and prediabetes also received the same inappropriate dessert, resulting in similar issues. The facility's dietician confirmed the failure to provide the correct diet items.
The facility failed to meet the required room size standards, providing less than 80 square feet per resident in multiple occupancy rooms. Despite the deficiency, residents expressed no concerns about their living space, and the issue was not raised in Resident Council meetings.
Failure to Provide Timely Incontinence Care and Maintain Resident Dignity
Penalty
Summary
A resident with diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia, post-traumatic seizures, insomnia, anxiety disorder, essential tremor, and a history of traumatic brain injury was observed to have visibly wet pants for an extended period while sitting in a common area. The resident's Minimum Data Set indicated that he was rarely or never understood and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene. The care plan noted a risk for impaired skin integrity and a history of refusing incontinence care at times. On the day in question, the resident was first observed with visibly wet pants at 9:15 AM, and this condition persisted until at least 11:50 AM. Multiple staff members, including CNAs, the Activities Assistant, the DON, and the CNA Supervisor, walked by or interacted with the resident during this time but did not address or acknowledge the resident's soiled condition. Some staff asked the resident if he wanted to use the bathroom or take a shower, but the resident either declined or did not respond. Staff interviews later revealed that the resident sometimes refused care, but alternative approaches, such as having a different staff member ask, were not consistently attempted during the observed period. Despite the facility's expectation that residents should be checked for incontinence at least every two hours, there was no documented policy on this practice, and the resident remained in soiled clothing for several hours. When the resident was finally assisted to the shower room, redness was observed on his buttocks and groin. The failure to provide timely incontinence care and maintain the resident's dignity was directly observed and confirmed through staff interviews and record review.
Failure to Provide Sufficient Nursing Staff for Resident Care Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to meet the daily needs of all residents, as evidenced by multiple missed or delayed care events. Several residents with significant medical conditions, including diabetes, hemiplegia, cognitive impairment, and mobility deficits, did not receive scheduled showers or timely incontinence care. Documentation showed that residents dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) such as bathing and toileting often missed scheduled showers, sometimes going up to six days without bathing, and experienced delays in call light response, resulting in incontinence episodes. Interviews with residents revealed consistent concerns about inadequate staffing, with reports of long wait times for assistance, missed showers, and insufficient help with toileting. Some residents reported waiting up to an hour for staff to respond to call lights, and several stated that they had experienced incontinence episodes due to these delays. Observations by surveyors confirmed instances of poor hygiene, such as greasy hair and foul body odor, and staff interviews corroborated that low staffing levels made it difficult to provide timely care, especially during shifts with only one or two CNAs present. Review of facility records, including timecards and schedules, confirmed that there were multiple shifts with only one or two CNAs available to care for approximately forty residents. Staff members, including CNAs and nurses, reported being unable to complete all scheduled showers or respond to call lights promptly during these periods. The facility's assessment tool did not specify staffing requirements tailored to the facility's needs, further contributing to the deficiency in meeting resident care needs.
Delayed Call Light Response Due to Insufficient Staffing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that call lights were answered in a timely manner for six out of eight residents reviewed for call light response. Multiple residents with significant medical needs, including diabetes, obesity, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, hemiplegia, and incontinence, reported delays in receiving assistance after activating their call lights. These residents were dependent on staff for activities of daily living such as toileting, bathing, and incontinence care, and several reported waiting up to an hour for help or experiencing incontinence episodes while waiting for staff to respond. Interviews with residents revealed consistent concerns about insufficient staffing levels, particularly during certain shifts or on weekends. Residents described situations where only two CNAs were available for the entire facility, leading to delays in care, missed showers, and unmet toileting needs. Some residents were unable to recall the exact wait times but indicated that the delays were significant enough to result in discomfort or incontinence. Staff interviews corroborated the residents' accounts, with CNAs and an LPN acknowledging that staffing shortages made it difficult to answer call lights and provide timely care. Staff described working shifts with only one or two CNAs, sometimes being left alone for extended periods, and being unable to complete scheduled showers or incontinence care. The administrator confirmed that the facility often operated with fewer CNAs than ideal, and that nurses were expected to assist on the floor when possible.
Failure to Provide Timely ADL Assistance Due to Insufficient Staffing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), including bathing and incontinence care, for eight residents reviewed for ADL needs. Multiple residents with significant medical conditions such as diabetes, hemiplegia, heart disease, cognitive impairment, and mobility deficits were dependent on staff for essential care. Documentation and interviews revealed that scheduled showers were frequently missed, and residents often experienced delays in receiving incontinence care and assistance with toileting. Care plans for several residents lacked specific interventions for bathing or toileting, and scheduled shower lists were not consistently followed. Residents and their family members reported that insufficient staffing led to long wait times for assistance, sometimes up to an hour, resulting in missed showers and incontinent episodes. Several residents stated that there were not enough CNAs on duty, especially during certain shifts, which directly impacted the timeliness and frequency of care provided. Observations included residents with greasy hair and foul body odor, and staff interviews confirmed that short staffing made it difficult to complete scheduled showers and respond to call lights promptly. Staff also reported that on some occasions, only one CNA was available for the entire facility, making it impossible to meet all residents' needs in a timely manner. The facility's own staff, including CNAs and nurses, acknowledged the ongoing staffing shortages and the resulting inability to provide timely ADL care. Some staff described working shifts with only one or two CNAs, which was insufficient to complete all required care tasks, including showers and incontinence care. Documentation of care provided was also inconsistent, with some staff admitting to forgetting to fill out shower sheets. The administrator confirmed that the facility often operated with fewer CNAs than ideal, and that nurses were sometimes required to assist with direct care due to the lack of available CNAs.
Failure to Maintain Effective Bed Bug Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective bed bug control program, resulting in the presence of bed bugs and a lack of comprehensive response to the infestation. A resident first discovered a bed bug in her room and reported it to staff, who collected the specimen for confirmation. Despite confirmation of bed bugs by the pest control company, there was no evidence that the facility implemented systematic monitoring or inspection of other rooms following the initial report. Staff interviews revealed that several employees, including housekeeping, CNAs, and LPNs, were not educated on bed bug identification, management, or the facility's policy regarding infestations. Documentation showed that the pest control company treated affected rooms and provided recommendations, such as avoiding the use of wet cleaning methods on treated surfaces and sealing gaps around pipes. However, staff were not consistently informed about which rooms had been treated, leading to inappropriate cleaning practices that could compromise the effectiveness of pest control measures. Additionally, there was no documentation of staff education, ongoing monitoring, or inspection of recommended areas after the initial confirmation of bed bugs. The facility's own policy required staff training, regular inspections, and follow-up monitoring after treatment, but these steps were not followed. The lack of staff education, absence of a clear monitoring protocol, and failure to inspect and seal recommended areas contributed to the ongoing risk of bed bug infestation, potentially affecting all residents in the facility.
Inadequate Communication and Documentation in Resident Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to appropriately manage the non-emergent involuntary discharge of a resident, identified as R185, resulting in the resident being transferred to a facility over two hours away without proper notice to her family. R185, who had severe cognitive impairments and a history of wandering, was discharged without a physician's order or adequate communication with her family. The facility did not provide the resident or her family with the opportunity to appeal the discharge, as required by policy. R185's care plan indicated she had no discharge potential due to her cognitive and safety awareness issues, yet she was transferred to another facility with a locked unit. The facility's Social Services Director, V3, attempted to contact R185's son, V13, but failed to document these attempts or successfully communicate the discharge plan. V13 was unaware of the transfer until contacted by the new facility, leading to distress and a lack of opportunity to appeal the decision. The facility did not follow its own policies regarding involuntary discharges, failing to notify the ombudsman or complete necessary documentation. The administrator, V1, acknowledged the oversight in not treating the discharge as involuntary and failing to ensure V13 was informed. The lack of communication and documentation resulted in R185 being moved without her family's knowledge, causing psychosocial harm due to the sudden change in environment.
Infection Control Deficiencies in Transmission-Based Precautions and Hand Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement transmission-based precautions and proper hand hygiene, leading to deficiencies in infection control for two residents. Resident R85, who was admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and bipolar disorder, tested positive for COVID-19 while hospitalized. Upon returning to the facility, R85 was placed on transmission-based precautions. However, observations revealed that R85 was allowed to ambulate and eat in the dining room without wearing a mask or being encouraged to stay in her room, despite being on isolation precautions. Staff did not intervene to enforce these precautions, even when R85 interacted closely with peers. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene during catheter care for Resident R3, who was admitted with urinary retention and acute cystitis. A certified nursing assistant provided catheter care but did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes, which is against the facility's hand hygiene policy. The Director of Nurses acknowledged the expectation for hand hygiene to be performed between glove changes, but this was not adhered to during the observed care. These deficiencies highlight lapses in the facility's infection prevention and control program, as staff did not follow established protocols for transmission-based precautions and hand hygiene. The facility's policies, which align with guidelines from health authorities, were not effectively implemented, leading to potential risks of infection transmission among residents.
Absence of Call System in Shower Stalls
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a method for residents to call for assistance while in the shower stalls located in both the A and B halls. During observations conducted on September 18, 2024, it was noted that neither shower stall contained a call light or any accessible method for residents to summon help. This deficiency was confirmed through interviews with the facility's administrator, who acknowledged the absence of a call system in the shower stalls and admitted that there was no existing policy regarding the presence of call lights in these areas. The lack of a call system in the shower stalls has the potential to affect all 32 residents residing at the facility.
Failure to Ensure Dignified Dining Experience
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a dignified and respectful dining experience for residents, as observed during a survey. On September 18, 2024, a dietary staff member, identified as V10, was seen removing plates from residents who were still eating, which disrupted their dining experience. At one table, V10 removed a resident's plate while three others were still eating, prompting one resident to stop eating and leave the table. At another table, V10 attempted to remove a resident's plate and glass, despite the resident indicating they were not finished. The staff member was not aware of any policy against this practice and stated that she would remove plates as soon as she perceived a resident to be finished, regardless of others still eating at the table. The facility administrator confirmed the absence of a policy on dining cleaning procedures.
Unsanitary Bathroom Conditions for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary bathroom environment for 14 residents residing on the B and C Halls. Observations revealed significant issues in the shower room on the B hall, including a cracked and peeling shower stall floor with mold present between the wall and floor. Additionally, there was a 2.5-inch gap between the wall and floor near the toilet, and a black accumulation with water pooling in front of the toilet. The men's bathroom on the B hall also had an accumulation of dirt and debris, resulting in a black substance forming in front of the toilet. These conditions were confirmed by the facility administrator, who acknowledged the need for repair and cleaning. The facility's maintenance policy requires maintaining the building in good repair and free from hazards, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent physical abuse of a resident by another resident with a known history of abusive behavior. The incident involved a resident, identified as R85, who entered the room of another resident, R16, and made physical contact, resulting in a slight bruise to R16's upper lip. This incident was reported by staff, and both residents were assessed for injuries, with first aid provided to R16. Despite the known history of R85's behaviors, the facility did not effectively prevent the altercation. Another incident was reported involving the same residents, R16 and R85, in the dining room, where R85 allegedly made contact with R16. This incident was initially unwitnessed and unreported to the administration until days later. R16 reported the incident, and a witness, R7, later confirmed seeing R85 hit R16. The facility's initial investigation did not find any witnesses, but upon reopening the investigation, the allegation of abuse was substantiated. R16 has a history of schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder, with a BIMS score indicating cognitive intactness. R85, with a severe cognitive deficit, has a history of impulsive behaviors, including physical aggression. The facility's abuse prevention policy requires separation and evaluation of residents involved in such incidents, but the delayed reporting and investigation highlight a deficiency in the facility's response to resident-to-resident altercations.
Failure to Timely Report Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility staff failed to report an allegation of resident-to-resident physical abuse to the Administrator immediately, involving a resident identified as R16. The incident occurred on 9/13/24, when R16 reported that another resident, R85, made contact with her in the dining room. Although the altercation was unwitnessed and no injuries were noted, R16 later stated that R85 had previously given her a bloody lip and attempted to take a towel and her walker, hitting her in the arm and mouth. Despite these claims, the nurse on duty did not report the incident to the Administrator until 9/16/24, when the Administrator discovered the incident while reviewing notes. R16's medical history includes schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder, with a BIMS score indicating cognitive intactness. R85, on the other hand, has a severe cognitive deficit with a history of impulsive and physical behaviors, including hitting and inappropriate touching. The facility's Abuse Prevention Program-Policy requires employees to report any allegations of abuse immediately to the Administrator, which was not adhered to in this case, leading to a delay in the investigation of the incident.
Failure to Notify Resident's Representative of Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a resident, identified as R185, or their representative, with a written notice of discharge including appeal rights. R185, who had a severely impaired cognition as indicated by a BIMS score of 00, was discharged from the facility without proper notification to their son, V13, who was the resident's Power of Attorney (POA). The facility's Social Service Director, V3, attempted to contact V13 but was unsuccessful and did not document all attempts. V3 mailed a letter to V13 on the day of discharge, but V13 reported not receiving any prior notification or paperwork regarding the discharge. The facility initiated R185's discharge to another facility with a locked memory care unit. V13 was not informed of the transfer until contacted by the new facility to verify medications. V13 expressed anger and frustration, stating that he was not aware of the discharge and that the new facility was significantly farther from his home. The facility's administrator, V1, acknowledged that they did not complete a notice of involuntary transfer form or notify the ombudsman, and there was no documentation of attempts to contact V13 or other family members listed in R185's contact list. The facility's policies on transfer or discharge were not followed, as they did not provide the required documents to the resident or representative, nor did they review the final post-discharge plan with the resident and family at least 24 hours before discharge. The facility lacked a policy regarding involuntary facility-initiated non-emergent discharges, and V1 admitted that V3, who was still learning the Social Service Director role, might not have known to contact other family members. The failure to notify V13 prevented him from exercising his right to appeal the discharge.
Failure to Provide Discharge Summary for Resident Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a discharge summary for a resident, identified as R185, who was reviewed for discharge. R185 was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including severe dementia and cognitive communication deficit, and had a history of wandering and behavioral issues. The resident was dependent on assistance for daily activities and was considered to have no discharge potential due to poor safety awareness and cognition. Despite this, R185 was discharged to another facility without a completed discharge summary, as required by the facility's policy. The Social Service Director, identified as V3, admitted that the discharge summary was not completed until several months after the discharge occurred. V3 was unaware of the requirement to complete a discharge summary when transferring a resident to another facility. The facility's policy mandates that a discharge summary and post-discharge plan be developed and reviewed with the resident and family at least 24 hours before discharge, and a copy should be provided to the resident and receiving facility. This policy was not followed in the case of R185, leading to the deficiency noted in the report.
Failure to Administer Medications as Ordered for Respiratory Concerns
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow physician's orders for a resident with respiratory concerns, leading to a deficiency. The resident, who had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, dementia, and anxiety disorder, reported feeling unwell with symptoms of shortness of breath and constant coughing. The physician ordered a chest x-ray, Prednisone, and Duoneb to be administered on the same day. However, the medications were not started until two days later, and the Duoneb was not administered at all by the time of the survey. Despite the physician's expectation for immediate administration, the facility delayed the treatment without documented justification. The resident continued to experience respiratory distress, including labored breathing and difficulty in conversation, as observed by the surveyor. The Director of Nursing and other staff members were unable to provide an explanation for the delay in medication administration, and there was a lack of documentation regarding assessments and interventions in the resident's electronic health record.
Failure to Provide Nutritional Supplements and Adhere to Weight Management Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide nutritional supplements as ordered and did not adhere to its weight management policy for two residents. Resident 27, who has severe cognitive impairment and other medical conditions, experienced a significant weight loss of 15.7% since admission. Despite a recommendation from the registered dietician to provide a health shake with meals, the resident was observed attempting to drink a frozen health shake, indicating it was not prepared for consumption. Additionally, there was a lack of documentation and notification regarding the resident's weight loss, and the resident was not weighed according to the facility's policy. Resident 15, who is under hospice care with a terminal diagnosis, did not receive the prescribed extra dessert with lunch on multiple occasions. The resident's weight records contained an incorrect entry, which affected the weight monitoring and notification process. The registered dietician was not informed of the resident's significant weight loss, and the resident did not receive the dietary supplements as ordered. The facility's policy requires immediate notification of the dietician in case of significant weight changes, which was not followed. The facility's policy on weight assessment and intervention outlines specific procedures for monitoring and addressing weight changes, including weekly weigh-ins for new admissions and immediate notification of the dietician for significant weight changes. However, these procedures were not followed for the residents in question, leading to deficiencies in their nutritional care. The lack of adherence to the policy and failure to provide ordered supplements contributed to the identified deficiencies.
Failure to Provide Prescribed Diets
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide diets as ordered for two residents, R18 and R24, who were reviewed for nutrition. R18, diagnosed with dementia and diastolic heart failure, had a physician's order for a regular diet with mechanical soft texture, thin liquid consistency, and specific dietary items such as cut meats, super cereal, and health shakes. However, during an observation, R18 was given a crispy rice dessert bar, which was not suitable for her mechanical soft diet, leading her to struggle with chewing and ultimately not consuming the dessert. Similarly, R24, diagnosed with dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and prediabetes, had a physician's order for a NAS diet with mechanical soft texture and thin liquids. R24 was also observed receiving the crispy rice dessert bar, which was not appropriate for the ordered diet, resulting in difficulty chewing and a reaction that included clearing his throat and leaving the table. The facility's diet spreadsheet and policy on therapeutic diets indicated that mechanically altered diets should include items consistent with the specific diet texture. However, the registered dietician, V17, confirmed that the residents did not receive the diet items as ordered, which should have included desserts suitable for a mechanical soft diet. This discrepancy between the ordered diets and the actual food provided to the residents highlights the facility's failure to adhere to prescribed dietary orders, as observed and documented during the survey.
Deficiency in Room Size Standards
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide the required 80 square feet of floor space per resident in multiple occupancy rooms, affecting eight residents. During a survey, the administrator and surveyor measured several rooms and found that the space per resident was below the required standard. For instance, one room measured 153.13 square feet, providing only 76.56 square feet per person, while another room measured 145.83 square feet, offering just 72.92 square feet per person. These measurements were consistent across all rooms assessed, indicating a systemic issue with room sizes. Despite the deficiency in room size, the residents involved, who were alert and oriented, expressed no concerns about their living space. The facility's administrator confirmed that all rooms, except for two used as offices, were double occupancy. The facility's Bed Management Tool corroborated the residency of the affected individuals in the measured rooms. Additionally, a review of six months of Resident Council meeting minutes revealed no reported concerns regarding room sizes.
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 149 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 2 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Herrin
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shawnee Senior Living | 0.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Helia Healthcare Of Energy | 3.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 32 | 1 |
| Parkway Manor | 5.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Axiom Healthcare Of West Frankfort | 7.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 27 | 0 |
| Integrity Hc Of Marion | 8.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 24 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Integrity Hc Of Herrin.
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.