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 Winfield Senior Living Community during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to conduct a thorough assessment to determine necessary resources for resident care during daily operations and emergencies. The assessment lacked specific staffing levels for each unit, including RNs, LPNs/LVNs, CMAs, and CNAs, and did not include contingency plans for non-emergency events. Input from residents and their representatives was also missing, affecting all 72 residents.
The facility failed to ensure sanitary storage and disposal of face masks and oxygen cannulas, and lacked a specific Legionella disease program. Observations showed improper storage of a resident's nasal cannula and a used face mask on a PPE cart. Staff interviews confirmed the need for proper storage and disposal practices, but there was a lack of awareness and documentation of the Legionella Water Management Program, putting residents at risk for infectious diseases.
The facility failed to ensure controlled substances were properly accounted for and reconciled between shifts, risking misappropriation and diversion. Missing signatures on narcotic count sheets for several shifts indicated non-compliance with the policy requiring on-coming and off-going nurses to count medications together. Staff interviews confirmed the expected practice, but discrepancies were not reported as required.
A facility failed to secure one of its medication carts, leaving it unattended and unlocked outside a resident's room. The cart contained medications and wound care supplies, and staff confirmed that carts should be locked when not in use. This oversight placed residents at risk for medication diversion and ineffective regimens.
The facility failed to offer the PCV20 vaccine or obtain informed declinations for four residents, despite their eligibility. The residents' records showed previous pneumococcal vaccinations but lacked documentation for PCV20. The Infection Preventionist admitted to overlooking this, contrary to the facility's policy requiring timely vaccine assessments and offerings.
A facility failed to provide written notification for a resident's transfer to an acute care facility for emergency evaluation due to low sodium levels. The resident, with a history of cerebral infarction and congestive heart failure, required substantial assistance with daily activities. Although verbal notification was given to the resident's representative, the facility did not provide the required written documentation, placing the resident at risk of delayed or uncommunicated care needs.
The facility failed to update care plans for two residents, leading to potential risks. One resident's care plan did not reflect the need for a Hoyer lift for transfers, while another's care plan inaccurately listed dialysis days and lacked fluid restriction monitoring. Staff interviews confirmed the discrepancies, and the facility could not provide a policy for care plan revisions.
A resident with cognitive impairment and hemiparesis experienced a coffee spill incident, but the facility failed to assess the resident's ability to handle hot liquids or update the care plan to reflect potential risks. Staff acknowledged the need for safety assessments and special utensils, but no such measures were documented or implemented.
A resident with a history of hemiparesis and cerebrovascular accident did not receive necessary ROM services to prevent worsening contractures in his left hand. Despite having intact cognition, the resident reported not receiving assistance due to lack of insurance coverage for therapy. Facility staff were unclear about restorative programs, and the facility's policy to prevent avoidable reduction in ROM was not followed, leaving the resident at risk for further decline.
A resident with a history of falls and high fall risk due to medical conditions did not receive the care-planned interventions to prevent falls. The facility failed to ensure the use of a gait belt and Dycem mat, leading to a witnessed fall and minor injury. Staff interviews confirmed the expectations, but these were not consistently followed, placing the resident at risk.
A resident with cognitive and mental health issues experienced significant weight loss, which the facility failed to address through proper nutritional interventions. Despite having a care plan that included monitoring and supplement recommendations, staff were unaware of the resident's weight loss and necessary interventions, leading to a risk of malnourishment-related complications.
A resident with diabetes and chronic kidney disease did not have a physician order for dialysis, and the facility failed to monitor her fluid restriction as per the physician's order. Staff interviews revealed confusion about the resident's dialysis schedule and fluid monitoring responsibilities, indicating a lack of adherence to the facility's ESRD care policy.
A facility failed to provide necessary person-centered activities and interventions for a resident with dementia, leading to inadequate supervision and engagement. The resident, with a history of dementia and other health issues, required maximal assistance but was often left unsupervised. The care plan lacked specific directions for preferred activities, and the facility's activity program did not adequately address the resident's needs due to understaffing and limited engagement opportunities.
A facility failed to ensure a Consulting Pharmacist identified and made recommendations regarding a resident's Midodrine medication, used for low blood pressure. The resident, with a history of stroke, dementia, and orthostatic hypotension, received the medication despite high blood pressure readings, without proper monitoring parameters. Staff interviews revealed a lack of communication and policy on pharmacy reviews, placing the resident at risk for unnecessary medications and side effects.
A resident with a history of stroke, dementia, and orthostatic hypotension was administered Midodrine without proper blood pressure monitoring parameters in place. Despite high blood pressure readings, the medication was not held, contrary to the facility's policy and standard practice. This oversight placed the resident at risk for unnecessary medications and potential side effects.
A facility failed to document appropriate rationale for the use of psychotropic medications in two residents. One resident received Olanzapine without a documented attempt at gradual dose reduction or physician rationale, while another resident continued using PRN Ativan without a documented reason. These deficiencies risked unnecessary medication use and complications.
A resident with dementia and moderately impaired cognition consistently refused bathing, but the facility failed to revise the care plan to include notifying the family member of refusals. Despite the care plan requiring daily bathing offers and notification of refusals to the charge nurse, the facility did not adhere to these protocols, resulting in the resident not receiving a bath for 24 days.
A resident with dementia and prolapse bladder did not receive necessary bathing services for 24 days due to staff's failure to follow protocol. The resident preferred baths at night, but the facility moved her shower to the day shift, leading to refusals. Staff were unaware of the requirement to notify family when the resident refused bathing, and documentation was inconsistent.
Inadequate Facility-Wide Assessment for Staffing and Emergency Preparedness
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct a thorough facility-wide assessment to determine the necessary resources for competent resident care during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. The assessment, last updated on 08/08/24, did not specify staffing levels required for each unit, including the number of RNs, LPNs/LVNs, CMAs, and CNAs needed based on patient acuity and census. Additionally, the assessment lacked details on staffing requirements for each shift, including evenings and weekends. It also failed to include informed contingency plans for events that could impact resident care without activating the emergency plan. Furthermore, the assessment did not document input from residents and their representatives. Administrative Nurse D stated that the facility assessment was revised annually, with staffing requirements determined by the facility's acuity and each unit's needs. However, the facility's policy, revised in 10/2018, indicated that the assessment should identify specific nursing and staffing requirements, nursing services, treatment options, and emergency management. Despite these guidelines, the facility did not conduct a comprehensive and updated assessment, affecting all 72 residents residing in the facility.
Infection Control Deficiencies in PPE and Legionella Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions for face masks and oxygen cannulas, and did not implement a Legionella disease program specific to the facility. Observations revealed that a resident's nasal cannula was improperly stored over a wheelchair and an oxygen canister, rather than in a sanitary manner. Additionally, a used face mask was found on a PPE cart outside a resident's room with COVID-19, indicating improper disposal or storage of personal protective equipment. Interviews with staff members, including a CNA, LN, and Administrative Nurse, confirmed that respiratory equipment not in use should be stored in a plastic bag with the resident's name, and used masks should be disposed of properly. However, there was a lack of awareness and documentation regarding the facility's Legionella Water Management Program, which is crucial for preventing waterborne contamination. These practices placed residents at risk for infectious diseases.
Failure to Reconcile Controlled Substances Between Shifts
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure controlled substances were properly accounted for and reconciled between shifts, which placed residents at risk for misappropriation and/or diversion of these medications. During a review of the narcotic count sheets for December 2024, January, and February 2025, it was found that there were missing signatures for either the on-coming or off-going nurse for several shifts. Specifically, discrepancies were noted for the morning shifts on January 30, 31, February 1, 2, and 3, and for the evening shifts on January 26, 29, February 1, and 3. This indicates that the required procedure of counting controlled substances at the end of each shift was not consistently followed. Interviews with staff revealed that the facility's policy required both the on-coming and off-going nurses to count controlled substances together and ensure the count was correct before leaving the facility. Licensed Nurse G confirmed that this was the expected practice, and Administrative Nurse D reiterated that anyone handling medication carts should perform the count with the oncoming nurse each shift. The facility's Controlled Substances policy, revised in April 2019, mandates compliance with laws and regulations regarding the handling and documentation of controlled medications, including immediate reporting of any discrepancies to the director of nursing services. The failure to adhere to these procedures resulted in a deficiency that compromised the security and accountability of controlled substances within the facility.
Unsecured Medication Cart Poses Risk
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the safe storage of medications on one of its four medication carts, which placed residents at risk for diversion and ineffective medication regimens. During an inspection on February 4, 2025, at 7:01 AM, a treatment cart was found unsecured outside a resident's room on the 100 Hall, with no staff present to monitor it. The cart contained medications and wound care supplies for the resident. At 7:05 AM, an administrative nurse confirmed the cart was left unlocked and secured it. On February 6, 2025, staff interviews revealed that medication carts were expected to be locked when not in use, as per the facility's policy revised in November 2020. However, the facility did not adhere to this policy, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Offer PCV20 Vaccine to Eligible Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to offer or obtain informed declinations or a physician-documented contraindication for the Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20) for four residents, identified as R1, R12, R27, and R28. This oversight was discovered through record reviews and interviews, revealing that these residents were not offered the PCV20 vaccine, nor was there documentation of a historical administration or a physician-documented contraindication. The clinical records of these residents showed previous administrations of other pneumococcal vaccines, such as PCV13 and PPSV23, but lacked any mention of the PCV20 vaccine being offered or declined. The facility's policy, last revised in August 2016, stated that all residents should be offered pneumococcal vaccines to prevent pneumonia and related infections. The policy required assessments of pneumococcal vaccination status within five working days of admission, with the vaccine series offered within thirty days unless contraindicated or previously administered. However, the facility's Infection Preventionist, responsible for tracking immunization status, admitted to overlooking the PCV20 immunization status for these residents, placing them at increased risk for complications related to pneumonia.
Failure to Provide Written Notification for Resident Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written notification of a facility-initiated transfer for a resident, identified as R44, who was sent to an acute care facility for emergency evaluation due to low sodium levels. The resident's medical history included cerebral infarction, hemiparesis/hemiplegia, and congestive heart failure, and he required substantial assistance with activities of daily living. Despite the verbal notification to the resident's representative about the hospital transport, the facility did not provide written notification detailing the reason and location of the transfer. The deficiency was identified during a review of R44's clinical records, which lacked evidence of the required written notification. The facility's administrative nurse confirmed that only verbal notifications were given, and the facility was unable to provide a policy related to transfer or notification requirements. This oversight placed the resident at risk of delayed care or uncommunicated care needs, as the necessary documentation was not available.
Care Plan Deficiencies for Transfer and Dialysis Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update the care plan for Resident 12 to reflect her current transfer requirements. Despite a fall intervention update on 10/07/24 that instructed the use of a Hoyer lift for safe transfers, the care plan still listed a gait belt and walker for transfers. This oversight placed Resident 12 at risk for impaired care due to uncommunicated care needs. Staff interviews confirmed that the care plan should have been updated to reflect the current intervention, and the facility was unable to provide a policy related to care plan revisions. Additionally, the facility did not revise Resident 23's care plan to include updated dialysis days and monitoring of her fluid restriction. The care plan inaccurately listed dialysis days and lacked direction for nursing staff to monitor fluid restrictions, despite physician orders indicating dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Staff interviews revealed confusion about the dialysis schedule and fluid monitoring responsibilities, with some staff unaware of the correct dialysis days and who was responsible for monitoring fluid intake. These deficiencies in care plan updates for both residents placed them at risk for unmet care needs. Resident 12's care plan did not reflect her need for a Hoyer lift, and Resident 23's care plan did not accurately reflect her dialysis schedule or fluid restriction monitoring, leading to potential complications related to their respective conditions.
Failure to Assess Resident's Ability to Handle Hot Liquids
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to evaluate a resident's risks and abilities related to handling hot liquids, which placed the resident at risk for preventable accidents and injuries. The resident, who had a medical history of hemiparesis, cognitive impairment, and required assistance with activities of daily living, experienced a coffee spill incident. Despite the incident, there was no documentation in the resident's care plan or electronic medical records indicating that a risk assessment was conducted to determine the resident's ability to safely manage hot liquids or if special utensils were needed. Observations and interviews revealed that the resident sometimes struggled to hold cups and had difficulty completing activities of daily living, requiring substantial staff assistance. Staff members acknowledged that residents at risk for spilling drinks should be provided with cups with lids and assessed for safety. However, there was no evidence that such assessments were conducted for the resident following the coffee spill incident, and the care plan did not reflect potential risks related to handling hot liquids.
Failure to Provide ROM Services for Resident with Contractures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary services and treatment to prevent the worsening of contractures in a resident's left hand. The resident, who had a history of hemiparesis, hemiplegia, cerebrovascular accident, and muscle weakness, was observed sitting in a wheelchair with his left hand hanging downward and fingers slightly closed. Despite having intact cognition, as indicated by a BIMS score of 15, the resident reported not receiving assistance with range of motion (ROM) exercises for his left hand due to a lack of insurance coverage for therapy. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of clarity and implementation of restorative programs for residents. A CNA was unsure if any staff provided ROM exercises for the resident, and a licensed nurse was unaware of any restorative programs in place. The administrative nurse indicated that residents would only be placed on a restorative program if recommended by therapy, which would occur after a decline in ROM. The facility's policy stated that residents should not experience an avoidable reduction in ROM and should receive treatment to prevent further decline, but this was not adhered to, leaving the resident at risk for further decline and discomfort.
Failure to Follow Fall Interventions for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the safety of a resident, identified as R16, by not adhering to her care-planned fall interventions. R16, who had a history of falls and was at high risk due to her medical conditions including cerebral infarction, dementia, muscle weakness, and orthostatic hypotension, required assistance with activities of daily living and was dependent on staff for mobility. Her care plan specified the use of a gait belt and touch assistance during transfers and the presence of a Dycem mat in her chair to prevent slipping. However, on multiple occasions, it was observed that the Dycem mat was not in place when R16 was seated in her recliner, and staff failed to use a gait belt or provide touch assistance during a witnessed fall incident. The deficiency was further highlighted by a fall investigation report which identified that staff did not utilize the required safety measures, leading to a minor injury fall where R16 suffered a skin tear. Interviews with staff confirmed the expectations for using a gait belt and ensuring the Dycem mat was in place, yet these interventions were not consistently followed. The facility's fall guidelines required interventions to reduce fall risks, but the failure to implement these measures placed R16 at risk for preventable falls and injuries.
Failure to Address Resident's Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to identify and implement nutritional interventions for a resident, referred to as R26, who experienced continued weight loss. R26's medical history included cognitive communication deficit, dementia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety. Despite having an intact cognition score, R26 was not on a physician-prescribed weight loss program. The resident's care plan included various interventions such as encouraging adequate intake, monitoring for chewing or swallowing difficulties, and offering snacks and supplements. However, these interventions were not effectively implemented, as evidenced by a significant weight loss of 26.4 pounds over several months. The facility's staff, including a CNA and a licensed nurse, were unaware of R26's weight loss and the necessary interventions to address it. The facility's policy required the multidisciplinary team to monitor and intervene in cases of undesirable weight loss, but this was not adequately done for R26. The registered dietitian reviewed R26's records and recommended supplements, but there was a lack of communication and follow-through among the staff. This deficiency placed R26 at risk for malnourishment-related complications, as the facility did not effectively address the ongoing weight loss.
Deficient Dialysis Care and Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident, identified as R23, had a physician order for hemodialysis that included an indication. Additionally, the facility did not adhere to the physician's order for fluid restriction for R23. These deficiencies were identified through observation, record review, and interviews, indicating a lack of proper documentation and monitoring of the resident's dialysis care. R23's medical history included diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease, requiring dialysis services. The resident's care plan outlined specific instructions for monitoring renal failure, lab work, weight, protein and potassium intake, and signs of infection. However, the clinical record lacked a physician order for dialysis and documentation of fluid restriction monitoring, which are critical components of managing a resident with end-stage renal disease. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of clarity and responsibility regarding the monitoring of R23's fluid intake and dialysis schedule. Certified Nurse Aide M was unsure of R23's dialysis days, while Licensed Nurse G acknowledged the absence of a physician order for dialysis and uncertainty about who monitored the fluid restriction. Administrative Nurse D expected an order for dialysis and stated that dietary staff monitored fluid intake, but there was no documentation of this monitoring. The facility's policy on ESRD/hemodialysis care was not effectively implemented, leading to potential risks for the resident.
Failure to Provide Person-Centered Dementia Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary person-centered activities and interventions for a resident diagnosed with dementia, which included the need for close supervision to prevent wandering and falls. The resident, identified as R13, had a history of dementia, heart failure, hypertension, and osteoporosis, and required maximal assistance with activities of daily living. Despite these needs, the care plan lacked specific directions for person-centered activities that R13 preferred or attended, and the resident was often left unsupervised in the memory care unit. Observations revealed that R13 spent significant time in a wheelchair in the main television area or dining table, often without direct supervision. The resident's care plan directed staff to engage R13 in activities of interest and monitor for exit-seeking behavior, but these interventions were not effectively implemented. The facility's activity program, which was supposed to be based on comprehensive resident-centered assessments, did not adequately address R13's needs, as evidenced by the resident's limited participation in activities and the lack of staff available to provide consistent engagement. Interviews with staff indicated that the memory care unit was often understaffed, with only one staff member present to manage multiple residents, limiting the ability to provide individualized activities. The part-time activity staff and occasional additional aide support were insufficient to meet the needs of residents like R13, who required more consistent and personalized attention. This deficiency in providing appropriate dementia care placed R13 at risk of ineffective treatment and decreased quality of care.
Failure to Monitor and Recommend on Midodrine Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Consulting Pharmacist (CP) identified and made recommendations regarding a resident's Midodrine medication, which is used to treat low blood pressure. The resident, who had a history of cerebral infarction, dementia, muscle weakness, and orthostatic hypotension, was at risk for unnecessary medications and potential side effects due to the lack of proper monitoring and recommendations. The resident's care plan indicated a risk for cardio/circulatory complications, and the medication orders did not include blood pressure monitoring parameters. The resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed that Midodrine was administered multiple times despite the resident having high blood pressure readings, which were above the usual parameters for holding the medication. Licensed Nurse G stated that Midodrine should be held if the resident's blood pressure was higher than the ordered amount, and the order should have included parameters. However, the facility's pharmacy reviews did not include any notes or recommendations related to the resident's Midodrine medication. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the pharmacy reviews all residents' medications and sends reports back to the facility, but the Administrative Nurse D was not informed that the resident's medication was being given with high blood pressure. Additionally, the facility was unable to provide a policy related to monthly pharmacy reviews when requested. This oversight placed the resident at risk for unnecessary medications and potential side effects due to the lack of proper monitoring and recommendations from the CP.
Failure to Ensure Safe Administration of Midodrine
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure safe medication administration for Resident 16's Midodrine medication, which is used to treat low blood pressure. The resident had a history of cerebral infarction, dementia, muscle weakness, and orthostatic hypotension, and was at high risk for falls due to her prescribed medications. Despite these conditions, the facility did not include blood pressure monitoring parameters in the physician's orders for Midodrine, which was administered even when the resident's blood pressure readings were above typical holding parameters for the medication. Licensed Nurse G and Administrative Nurse D acknowledged that Midodrine should be held if the resident's blood pressure was higher than the ordered amount to avoid the risk of hypertension. However, the facility's Medication and Treatment Orders policy, which requires medications to be administered based on the practitioner's order and intended use, was not followed. This oversight placed the resident at risk for unnecessary medications and potential side effects, as the staff did not verify the medication with the physician or hold the medication when blood pressure readings were high.
Failure to Document Rationale for Psychotropic Medication Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an appropriate indication or a documented physician rationale for the use of antipsychotic medication in Resident 26. The resident, who had diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, dementia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety, was receiving Olanzapine for violent behaviors. However, there was no documented attempt at a gradual dose reduction (GDR) or a physician's rationale for not attempting GDR, which is a requirement unless clinically contraindicated. This oversight placed the resident at risk for unnecessary psychotropic medication use and potential related complications. Additionally, the facility did not ensure that Resident 1 had a documented physician rationale for the continued use of as-needed (PRN) Ativan beyond 14 days. The resident, diagnosed with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, was receiving multiple psychotropic medications, including Ativan for anxiety. The consultant pharmacist recommended a rationale for the continued use of PRN Ativan, but the physician's response lacked a reason or rationale, which is necessary to justify the extended use of such medications. This deficiency also placed the resident at risk for unnecessary medication administration and potential complications. The facility's Medication and Treatment Orders policy requires that medication orders be consistent with safe and effective order writing principles and that they be reviewed monthly by a consultant pharmacist. Despite this policy, the facility failed to ensure compliance, as evidenced by the lack of appropriate documentation and rationale for the use of psychotropic medications in the cases of Residents 26 and 1. These deficiencies highlight a failure in the facility's medication management practices, potentially compromising resident safety.
Failure to Revise Care Plan for Resident's Personal Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the care plan for a resident, identified as R1, to include necessary interventions related to personal hygiene. R1 had diagnoses of dementia without behavioral disturbance and prolapse bladder, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score indicating moderately impaired cognition. Despite being independent with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), R1 consistently refused bathing, as noted in the Quarterly Minimum Data Set. The care plan required staff to ask R1 daily if she wanted a bath and to notify the charge nurse if she refused, but it did not include notifying R1's family member of the refusals. Observations and interviews revealed that R1 did not receive a bath for 24 days, and the facility did not contact R1's family member despite repeated refusals. Staff interviews indicated a lack of awareness and adherence to the protocol of notifying the family member and documenting refusals. The facility's policy required ongoing assessments and revisions of care plans as residents' conditions changed, but this was not followed in R1's case, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Provide Necessary Bathing Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident 1 received necessary bathing services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene. Resident 1, who had diagnoses of dementia without behavioral disturbance and prolapse bladder, was noted to have moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 8. Despite being independent with ADLs, the care plan required staff to offer a bath daily and notify the charge nurse if the resident refused. However, the facility's records indicated that Resident 1 did not receive a bath for 24 days, and there was no evidence of family notification when the resident refused bathing. Interviews with staff revealed that Resident 1 preferred baths at night, but the facility had moved her shower to the day shift due to staffing arrangements. This change contributed to the resident's refusal to bathe. Staff members, including a CNA and a licensed nurse, were unaware of the protocol to contact the resident's family when bathing was refused. The facility's policy required documentation of bathing assistance, which was not consistently followed, leading to the deficiency in providing necessary bathing services.
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 31 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Winfield
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winfield Rest Haven Ii, Llc | 0.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Cumbernauld Village | 1.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Kansas Veterans Home | 1.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Anew Healthcare Oxford | 11 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Medicalodges Arkansas City | 11.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Winfield Senior Living Community.
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.