Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around November 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Nature Trail Health And Rehab during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two residents with documented weight loss and malnutrition risk did not consistently receive ordered nutritional interventions. One resident with severe PCM and on dialysis was ordered a liberal renal diet with double protein at all meals but was repeatedly served trays without the double protein, missing items such as salad and bread, and reported receiving only breakfast and dinner on dialysis days, with meals often cold and unappetizing. Another resident with dementia and significant prior weight loss was ordered a daily health shake with lunch, along with other supplements, yet over multiple observed lunches the health shake was absent despite being highlighted on the diet card and acknowledged by staff as ordered. These inactions resulted in inadequate implementation of prescribed diets and supplements intended to maintain residents’ nutritional status.
Surveyors found that multiple community bathrooms and shower rooms on several halls lacked accessible call light activation systems, despite facility policy requiring call lights to be within resident reach in rooms and bathrooms. In some areas, the call light string by the toilet was positioned behind the toilet and too short to be easily reached, and in other bathrooms and shower rooms there were no call lights accessible from either the toilet or the shower stall. The Maintenance Director acknowledged that toilets and shower stalls should have reachable call light strings, and facility records showed that 60 residents were residing in the facility at the time.
The facility failed to provide warm water in two rooms, affecting four cognitively intact residents with multiple chronic conditions, including COPD, diabetes, heart failure, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and major depressive disorder. These residents reported that the water in their bathroom sinks never became warm, even after running it for an extended period. Surveyors confirmed this by measuring sink water temperatures of approximately 67°F and 71°F using a calibrated thermometer. The Maintenance Director was aware that these rooms on one hall did not have hot water, had advised a resident to let the water run longer, and later stated he did not know why the rooms lacked hot water or how to fix it, despite a facility policy requiring a safe, comfortable, homelike environment.
Surveyors determined that the facility failed to ensure food was served at an appetizing temperature, particularly at breakfast. A calibrated thermometer showed sample pancakes and sausage at about 80°F and tasting cold. Several alert and oriented residents, including those who typically eat in their rooms, reported that breakfast items such as sausage, eggs, and pancakes were often cold or barely warm, and one resident stated he was told to eat in the dining room if he wanted hotter food. The Dietary Manager acknowledged that food should be served hot and not at 80°F and was unsure whether a policy existed for cold food.
A resident with heart failure, dysphagia, diabetes, and bipolar disorder, who was cognitively intact per BIMS, did not have a documented care plan meeting following the comprehensive assessment. The resident reported never being invited to such a meeting, and facility staff were unable to locate a signature sheet or progress notes showing that a care plan meeting occurred. This was inconsistent with the facility’s care plan policy, which requires that residents and their representatives be invited and encouraged to participate in the development and revision of the individualized plan of care.
Two residents who were dependent on staff for ADLs did not receive adequate hygiene and bathing assistance. One resident with dementia and blindness had long, visibly dirty fingernails over multiple days despite being care planned for assistance with personal hygiene, and staff provided inconsistent explanations of when nail care was performed, with the DON confirming there was no set schedule. Another resident with impaired mobility, cognitively intact and dependent on staff for bathing, reported not receiving scheduled baths, and documentation showed a nine-day period without bathing assistance, with an "NA" entry on a scheduled bath day that the DON later acknowledged meant the resident went without the expected care, contrary to the facility’s policy requiring at least twice-weekly bathing offers.
Staff failed to follow hand hygiene standards during catheter and incontinence care for three cognitively intact residents with conditions including Guillain-Barré syndrome, neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, benign prostatic hypertrophy, and hydronephrosis. CNAs providing Foley catheter and incontinence care changed gloves multiple times after cleaning and drying peri areas, catheter insertion sites, tubing, and buttocks, but did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes. In interviews, some CNAs admitted they forgot to use the hand sanitizer they carried, while others reported that sanitizer was not available in the room. This practice did not comply with the facility’s hand hygiene policy, which identifies hand hygiene as the primary means to prevent infection and requires it as the final step after PPE removal.
A resident with multiple serious medical conditions and moderately impaired cognition consented in writing to receive an influenza vaccine, but the facility did not administer it during the current stay. The immunization record showed the last flu shot was from a prior year, and the DON confirmed the vaccine had not been given and could not explain why. This occurred despite a facility policy requiring that current and newly admitted residents be offered influenza vaccination during the flu season.
Two residents were found to have medications left at their bedside for self-administration, contrary to facility policy. One resident, who was cognitively intact, had medications left without her knowledge, while another with moderate cognitive impairment had pills left on her bedside table to take at her convenience. Nursing staff admitted to this practice, and facility leadership confirmed it was against policy, which requires licensed nurses to administer and ensure medications are taken as ordered.
A resident at high risk for falls due to dementia and other conditions experienced two falls in a facility, resulting in a hip fracture. Despite orders for bed and chair alarms, these did not function during the incidents. Staff interviews revealed that the alarms were not checked properly, and a fall mat was missing. The facility's failure to ensure the effectiveness of fall prevention measures led to the resident's injuries.
The facility failed to provide adequate ROM care for five residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. A resident with hemiplegia did not receive therapy or ROM exercises, despite being cognitively intact and expressing a desire for therapy. Another resident with Parkinson's disease and moderate cognitive impairment also lacked documented orders for ROM, and staff admitted to not having a structured restorative program. Similar deficiencies were observed in three other residents, highlighting a systemic issue in the facility's approach to maintaining and improving residents' ROM.
The facility did not provide the required 80 square feet of floor space per resident for 38 residents, as rooms 100-109, 111, 201-209, and 211 were certified as two-bed rooms but measured only 144 square feet, equating to 72 square feet per resident. Despite this, several residents expressed no concerns about the room size, and the Resident Council Meeting Minutes documented no issues regarding room size.
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for a resident with a history of substance abuse. The care plan lacked goals and interventions for stimulant use and did not include strategies for monitoring the resident during community passes. This oversight led to the resident feeling unfairly treated and potentially contributed to his decision to discharge against medical advice.
Failure to Provide Ordered Double Protein Portions and Nutritional Supplements for Residents With Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate nutrition and ordered supplements to residents with identified nutritional risks and weight loss. One resident with severe protein calorie malnutrition, end stage renal disease, and multiple other diagnoses was ordered a liberal renal diet with double protein portions at all meals. The resident’s care plan and nutritional assessments identified him as at risk for malnutrition and documented that he would likely benefit from adding double protein to all meals. Despite this, observations on multiple days showed that his lunch trays did not include the ordered double protein portions, and some menu items such as salad and bread were missing without explanation, even though his diet card specified them. The same resident was also receiving dialysis three times per week and reported that on dialysis days he only received breakfast and dinner. He stated that the facility did not send a lunch with him to dialysis and that when he returned in the mid- to late afternoon, he was usually offered something to eat so close to dinner that he would then not eat the evening meal, resulting in only two meals on those days. He also reported that the food he received in his room was often cold and unappetizing, including plain pasta with no sauce and cold, burnt sausage and cold eggs and pancakes, which led him to eat very little. Weight records documented that his weight decreased from 172.6 pounds to 147.0 pounds between late November dates, a loss of 25.6 pounds or 14.83% in less than 30 days, and he confirmed a current weight in the mid‑140s when reweighed. A second resident with Alzheimer’s disease, major depressive disorder, GERD with esophagitis, and documented significant weight loss was ordered a regular diet with mechanical soft texture and nectar thick liquids, along with a daily health shake, Med Pass 2.0 three times a day for weight loss, and super cereal at breakfast. Her care plan identified risk for nutritional deficit and included providing nutritional supplements as ordered. The MDS documented that she was dependent for eating and had experienced weight loss of 5% or more in one month or 10% or more in six months, and the dietician’s note identified an 11% weight loss in six months and risk for malnutrition. However, over at least four consecutive lunch observations, the resident’s meal trays did not include the ordered health shake, even though it was highlighted on the diet card and staff, including CNAs and the Dietary Manager, acknowledged that the shake should have been provided and could not explain its absence. The facility’s own policy on weight assessment and intervention required that significant weight changes be confirmed and that the dietitian be notified in writing if verified, and stated that the multidisciplinary team would strive to prevent, monitor, and intervene for undesirable weight loss. In practice, the registered dietician reported being notified of the first resident’s significant weight drop but stated she was waiting for confirmation of the weight and had not heard back. For both residents, there were clear physician and dietician orders for enhanced nutrition and supplements, but observations and interviews showed that ordered double protein portions, health shakes, and complete meals were not consistently provided as specified, contributing to the identified deficiency in providing sufficient food and fluids to maintain residents’ health.
Inaccessible Call Light Systems in Community Bathrooms and Shower Rooms
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to provide an accessible call light activation system in multiple community bathrooms and shower rooms, despite a policy requiring call light devices to be kept within resident reach in rooms and bathrooms. On the 200 hall, one shower room across from a resident room had a call light string by the toilet positioned behind the toilet, extending only to about 3 inches above the bottom of the toilet tank, and there was no call light available from the shower stall area. In another 200 hall shower room located across and between two resident rooms, there was no call light accessible near either the toilet or the shower stall. On the 300 hall, one shower room lacked a call light accessible from the shower stall area, and a second 300 hall shower room had no call light accessible from either the toilet or the shower area. On the 100 hall, the shower room did not have a call light accessible from the shower stall. The Maintenance Director later stated that toilets and shower stalls should have call light strings available and within reach for residents to use if they were to fall. The facility’s LTC application documented that 60 residents resided in the facility at the time of the survey.
Failure to Provide Warm Water in Resident Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide warm water in resident rooms, compromising residents’ right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Four cognitively intact residents reported that the water in their bathroom sinks did not get warm. Two residents sharing one room, both with multiple chronic conditions including COPD, diabetes, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia, stated that the water in their room never became warm. A calibrated metal stemmed thermometer, verified at 32.5°F using the ice point method, was used to measure the water temperature at their bathroom sink after the water had been running for over 10 minutes; the temperature was 67.5°F. One of these residents reported having informed the Maintenance Director, who told her they needed to let the water run longer, but the water still did not become warm. Two additional cognitively intact residents in another room, both with extensive medical histories including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, COPD, heart failure, diabetes with hyperglycemia, anemia, arthropathy, hypothyroidism, sleep apnea, chronic pain syndrome, and muscle wasting, also reported that the water in their bathroom sink did not get warm. When the surveyor measured the water temperature at their sink after running it for several minutes, it registered 71.0°F. The Maintenance Director acknowledged awareness of the lack of hot water in these two rooms on the 100 hall and stated he did not know why those rooms did not have hot water and did not know how to fix the problem. This situation occurred despite a facility policy stating that residents are to be provided with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment.
Failure to Serve Palatable, Hot Breakfast Meals
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide food at an appetizing temperature for four residents who received cold food. On the morning of 12/04/25, a surveyor-verified, calibrated digital metal stem thermometer showed that a sample breakfast tray had a pancake at 80.6°F and sausage at 80.0°F, and both items tasted cold and unappetizing. One resident, who was alert and oriented, reported that the food was sometimes burnt and cold. Another alert and oriented resident stated that the breakfast sausage and eggs were always cold and reported being told that if he wanted hotter food, he should eat in the dining room; he later stated that his sausage was burnt and cold and his pancake was not very warm that morning. A third alert and oriented resident, who usually eats in her room, stated that her food, especially breakfast, was not always hot. A fourth alert and oriented resident, who also usually eats in her room, stated that sometimes the food was barely warm and that the sausage and pancake that day were not good. The Dietary Manager acknowledged that food served in the dining room or in resident rooms should be hot, not 80°F, and was unsure whether there was a policy for cold food. These observations and interviews demonstrated that multiple residents consistently received breakfast items, particularly sausage and pancakes, at temperatures that were not hot or appetizing, both in the dining room and in resident rooms, and that the measured temperatures of sampled food items were significantly below typical hot-holding or serving temperatures.
Failure to Conduct and Document Resident Care Plan Meeting
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a care plan meeting was conducted and documented for one cognitively intact resident following completion of the comprehensive assessment, as required by facility policy. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including heart failure, dysphagia, diabetes, and bipolar disorder, and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Review of the resident’s current medical record showed no signature sheet or progress notes indicating that a care plan meeting had been held, and the facility was unable to provide reproducible evidence that such a meeting occurred. In interview, the resident reported not being invited to a care plan meeting, and the social services staff member confirmed she could not locate any documentation of a care plan meeting in the resident’s record, despite the facility’s care plan policy stating that residents and their representatives are to be invited and encouraged to participate in development and revision of the care plan and that efforts will be made to schedule these meetings at a suitable time.
Failure to Provide Adequate Hygiene and Bathing Assistance for Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), specifically hygiene and bathing, for two residents who were dependent on staff. One resident with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, blindness in one eye, and an MDS indicating dependence on staff for all ADLs, including personal hygiene, was care planned for assistance with dressing, grooming, and personal hygiene. Despite this, surveyors repeatedly observed the resident’s fingernails to be long, yellowed, and visibly dirty with brown buildup and other unknown substances under the nails over several days. Certified nurse aides (CNAs) gave inconsistent descriptions of when nail care was provided (e.g., every Thursday, at every shower, daily, during manicure day), and the DON confirmed there was no specific time nail care was to be performed, only that it should be done as needed. Even after the nails were clipped, surveyors observed that the buildup under the nails remained. The Administrator stated that nails should be kept clean and trimmed to the resident’s desired length and agreed that the observed condition of the nails was unacceptable. The facility’s ADL policy required appropriate hygiene care, including grooming, for residents unable to carry out ADLs independently. The second resident, who was cognitively intact with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, morbid obesity, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, was documented as dependent on staff for bathing and had a care plan focus on ADL self-care performance deficit related to impaired mobility, with an intervention to assist with ADLs such as dressing, grooming, and personal hygiene as needed. The care plan did not specifically address bathing. The resident reported not receiving bathing assistance as scheduled, stating he was supposed to receive help on Wednesdays and Saturdays but did not always get it. Review of documentation for a one-month period showed that the resident received assistance with bathing on only six specified days, with a notation of “NA” (not applicable) on one scheduled bath day, resulting in a nine-day gap without documented bathing assistance. The DON initially did not know what “NA” meant, later confirmed it meant “not applicable,” and acknowledged that the resident went nine days without assistance with bathing and that he should not have gone that long without being offered a bath or shower. The facility’s bathing policy required that residents be offered a means of bathing at least twice a week at a time and by a method of their choosing, recognizing their right to refuse care.
Failure to Perform Hand Hygiene Between Glove Changes During Catheter and Incontinence Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure staff performed hand hygiene according to current standards of practice during catheter and incontinence care for three cognitively intact residents. One resident with Guillain-Barré syndrome, neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, and urinary retention had an indwelling Foley catheter with care ordered every shift. During observed catheter care, the CNA changed gloves multiple times after cleaning the insertion site, washing the tubing, and drying the area, but did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes. In a subsequent interview, the CNA acknowledged she should have performed hand hygiene between glove changes and stated it slipped her mind. Another resident with chronic kidney disease, heart failure, obesity, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, history of falls, and myoclonus required two-person assist for toileting. Two CNAs were observed providing incontinence care, including washing and drying the peri area and buttocks, and changing gloves after each step, but they did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes. Both CNAs later stated they had hand sanitizer in their pockets but either forgot to use it or were unsure why they did not. A third resident with benign prostatic hypertrophy and hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculus had an indwelling Foley catheter with orders for catheter care every shift. Two CNAs provided catheter care, changing gloves after cleaning the insertion site, tubing, and buttocks, and after drying, but did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes; they stated they did not have hand sanitizer in the room. The facility’s handwashing/hand hygiene policy states that hand hygiene is the primary means to prevent the spread of infections, that products and supplies shall be readily accessible and convenient for staff use, and that hand hygiene is the final step after removing and disposing of PPE.
Failure to Administer Influenza Vaccine After Resident Consent
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an influenza vaccination to one resident who had consented to receive it. The resident was admitted on 11/04/25 with multiple significant diagnoses, including spondylosis, critical illness myopathy, severe protein calorie malnutrition, monoclonal gammopathy, dependence on renal dialysis, osteophyte, acute on chronic systolic heart failure, major depressive disorder, Alzheimer's disease, muscle wasting and atrophy, pleural effusion, candidal stomatitis, atrioventricular block, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and chronic systolic heart failure. The resident’s Minimum Data Set documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition. On 11/05/25, the resident’s Vaccine Informed Consent Form documented that the resident accepted the influenza vaccine, with “yes” marked for receiving the influenza vaccination. Despite this documented consent, the Immunization Report showed the most recent influenza vaccination for the resident was dated 12/19/2022, prior to the current admission, and there was no record of an influenza vaccine being administered during the current stay. During an interview on 12/04/25 at 11:31 AM, the Director of Nursing confirmed that the resident had not received an influenza vaccination while at the facility and stated she did not know why it had not been given. This failure occurred despite the facility’s written policy, dated 09/2015, which states that current and newly admitted residents will be offered the influenza vaccine from October through the end of March each year, in accordance with recommendations from CDC and other professional organizations.
Medications Improperly Left at Bedside for Self-Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the proper and safe administration of medications in accordance with its own policy for two residents. In the first instance, a resident with diagnoses including bradycardia, heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes was found to have medications left at her bedside without her knowledge. The resident, who was cognitively intact, reported that nurses frequently left her medications at her bedside because she was difficult to wake in the mornings. On one occasion, an adult protective specialist visiting the resident observed a medicine cup with medications left on the resident's assistive device chair cushion. The nurse responsible for administering the medications documented them as given but did not recall leaving them at the bedside, despite the resident's statement and the observation by the visitor. In the second case, another resident with Alzheimer's disease and moderate cognitive impairment reported that nurses left her morning medications on her bedside table, and she would take them at her convenience. During an interview, the resident confirmed that her medications were currently sitting on her bedside table, and this was observed by surveyors. The LPN who delivered the medications admitted to leaving them on the bedside table and was unaware of any policy prohibiting this practice. The resident's care plan did not include self-administration of medications as a goal or focus area. Facility policy requires that medications be administered safely by licensed nurses at the specified time, following recommended methods, and that staff ensure medications are swallowed before leaving the resident. Both the DON and the Administrator confirmed that medications should not be left at the bedside and that staff are expected to follow policy and procedures. The failure to administer medications as required and leaving them at the bedside for residents to take on their own constituted a deficiency in pharmaceutical services.
Failure to Implement Fall Prevention Measures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement effective interventions to prevent falls for a resident, identified as R122, who was at high risk for falls due to conditions such as unspecified dementia, weakness, and atrial fibrillation. Despite having orders for bed and chair alarms, these alarms did not function during two separate fall incidents. The first fall occurred while the resident was eating dinner in his room, resulting in a minor head injury and subsequent transfer to the emergency room. The second fall happened when the resident slid out of bed, leading to a left intertrochanteric fracture, which required surgical intervention. Interviews with staff and the resident's roommate revealed that the alarms did not sound during either fall, and a fall mat was not observed in the room during the first incident. The resident's care plan included interventions such as assisting to the toilet before bed and using bed and chair alarms, but these measures were not effectively implemented or monitored. The CNA responsible for checking the alarms at the start of each shift could not explain why the alarms failed to activate. The Director of Nursing and other staff members confirmed that the alarms were supposed to be checked for placement and function every shift, yet the alarms did not alert staff during the falls. The resident's roommate, who witnessed the falls, corroborated that the alarms did not sound. The facility's failure to ensure the proper functioning of fall prevention measures directly contributed to the resident's falls and subsequent injuries.
Deficiencies in Range of Motion Care for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate services to maintain or improve the range of motion (ROM) for five residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident R23, who has hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction, did not receive any documented orders for ROM or restorative nursing programs. Despite being cognitively intact and expressing a desire for therapy, R23 reported not receiving any therapy or ROM exercises. Observations confirmed that ROM exercises were not performed on the affected side of R23's body, indicating a lack of comprehensive care. Resident R28, diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and moderate cognitive impairment, also did not have any documented orders for ROM or restorative nursing programs. The resident's care plan required extensive assistance for daily activities, yet observations showed that ROM exercises were not consistently performed. The facility's staff admitted to not having a structured restorative program, and the MDS nurse confirmed that ROM was not coded due to the absence of such a program. Similarly, residents R3, R37, and R52 experienced deficiencies in their care related to ROM. R3, with severe cognitive impairment and multiple contractures, did not receive consistent ROM exercises, and the restorative CNA admitted to not following any specific guidelines. R37, who has hemiplegia and a history of stroke, reported not receiving any daily exercises or therapy, despite having a contracture in the left hand. R52, with impaired lower extremities, also did not receive any restorative nursing programs post-therapy, as confirmed by the resident and the facility's staff. These findings highlight a systemic issue in the facility's approach to maintaining and improving residents' ROM, as evidenced by the lack of structured programs and consistent care.
Facility Fails to Meet Room Size Requirements
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide the required 80 square feet of floor space per resident for 38 out of 38 residents reviewed for room size in a sample of 55. The rooms in question, specifically rooms 100-109, 111, 201-209, and 211, are certified as two-bed rooms but measure only 12 feet by 12 feet, equating to 144 square feet, which is approximately 72 square feet per resident bed. This deficiency was confirmed through observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted by the surveyors. Despite the deficiency, several residents, including those in rooms 50, 51, 56, 11, and 35, expressed no concerns regarding the room size and were alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Additionally, the Resident Council Meeting Minutes from July 2024 through January 2025 documented no concerns regarding the size of resident rooms. The facility's daily roster confirmed that the affected residents resided in the rooms that did not meet the required space standards.
Failure to Develop Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident with Substance Abuse History
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan for a resident with a history of substance abuse. The resident's care plan did not include goals and interventions to address stimulant use, stimulant-induced disorder, or stimulant abuse in remission. Despite the resident's documented history of methamphetamine abuse and a hospital summary indicating this diagnosis, the care plan lacked focus areas related to substance abuse. The resident expressed efforts to avoid methamphetamine use, but the care plan did not reflect any strategies or monitoring for this issue. The deficiency was further highlighted when the resident went out on a community pass and returned late. The Director of Nursing and other staff members acknowledged that there were no care plan interventions for drug screening or community passes. The Medical Doctor ordered a drug test upon the resident's return due to his history of drug use, but the resident was not informed in advance about this requirement. The lack of a comprehensive care plan and clear communication led to the resident feeling unfairly treated and potentially contributed to his decision to discharge against medical advice.
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 89 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 3 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Mount Vernon
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Axiom Gardens Of Mount Vernon | 0.4 mi | — | 10 | 0 |
| Mount Vernon Countryside Manor | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Axiom Healthcare Of Mount Vernon | 1.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Centralia Manor | 19.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 19 | 1 |
| Fireside House Of Centralia | 19.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Nature Trail Health And Rehab.
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.