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 Christian Health Center Corbin during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with schizophrenia, dementia, and a documented history of sexually inappropriate and aggressive behavior repeatedly exhibited impulsive sexual contact, aggression toward staff and other residents, and attempts to enter others’ rooms over several months. Psychiatric notes, behavior notes, and staff reports described ongoing touching of female caregivers, pushing another resident toward her room, and entering residents’ rooms, yet MDS assessments documented no behaviors and the care plan and CNA Kardex did not include behavioral problems, supervision needs, or protective interventions. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment and anxiety, who had not been assessed or documented as able to consent to sexual contact, expressed fear and discomfort about this resident, crying and stating she did not feel safe. An LPN later found the aggressive resident in this resident’s room, positioned over her in bed, holding her hands down and pushing her back while attempting to get on top of her. Afterward, the cognitively impaired resident showed ongoing emotional distress and fear of that man entering her room again. Facility leadership, including the ED, DON, and social services, did not initially identify the event as abuse or report it, asserting without evidence that the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched, despite facility policy defining sexual abuse as nonconsensual contact and requiring documented capacity assessments.
The facility failed to immediately report multiple allegations and incidents of potential abuse and injuries of unknown origin to external authorities as required by policy and federal regulations. In one incident, an LPN observed a male resident with a history of sexual behaviors physically restraining a severely cognitively impaired female resident in her bed, causing her emotional distress, but leadership told the LPN not to escalate the concern and did not report the allegation to law enforcement or the SSA. Leadership, including the ED, DON, and social services, repeatedly decided that this and other events—such as a resident’s allegation that her roommate pushed her down and several severely cognitively impaired residents found with unexplained bruises to the thigh, knee, face, and upper arm—did not meet their internal definition of abuse and therefore were not reported, despite policy requiring all alleged abuse and injuries of unknown origin to be reported within two hours. The ED and a corporate representative acknowledged that the facility and corporate team would investigate first and determine what constituted abuse before reporting, rather than immediately reporting all allegations as required.
Facility leadership failed to ensure effective administration in care planning, abuse prevention, and mandatory reporting. A resident with schizophrenia had documented escalating aggressive and sexually inappropriate behaviors over several months, but nursing leadership did not identify these behaviors on the MDS, did not trigger the behavioral care area, and did not develop a behavioral care plan until after a serious incident. An LPN later observed this resident physically restraining and attempting to get on top of a severely cognitively impaired female resident in her bed and reported it to the DON and SSD/Assistant ED, but they dismissed the concern, did not classify it as abuse, and believed the cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched. The ED, acting as abuse coordinator, along with the DON and SSD/Assistant ED, did not report this allegation to state agencies or law enforcement within required time frames, and similar delays or failures occurred with other allegations of resident‑to‑resident abuse and injuries of unknown origin, contributing to an Immediate Jeopardy finding under F835.
The facility failed to conduct and document thorough investigations into multiple alleged abuse incidents and injuries of unknown origin. In several cases, a resident reported being pushed by a roommate, and other residents were found with bruises on the knee, inner and outer thigh, eye/cheek, and upper arm, but required elements such as complete skin assessments and written statements from direct care staff and witnesses were missing. The DON and leadership relied on brief notes and verbal interviews to conclude causes such as self-rubbing, prior aggressive behavior, or injury during a gown change, without obtaining the comprehensive documentation and assessments mandated by the facility’s abuse policy.
A resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and dementia was found with an open bottle of prescribed Nystatin Powder at the bedside and reported self-applying the medication without an interdisciplinary team assessment for safe self-administration. Staff admitted to routinely leaving medications at the bedside, and records showed no documentation of required evaluations, despite the resident being cognitively intact.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment was placed with a wander guard without consent, despite being assessed as a minimal elopement risk. The resident, who had previously signed himself in and out of the facility, expressed dissatisfaction with the device, stating he was not a prisoner. Staff confirmed the resident's capability to leave safely, and the DON and MD acknowledged the resident's right to refuse the wander guard.
Failure to Address Known Sexual and Aggressive Behaviors Resulting in Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a severely cognitively impaired resident from abuse by another resident despite months of documented sexually inappropriate and aggressive behaviors. The resident identified as the aggressor had schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, and dementia, and psychiatric evaluations as early as mid‑August documented a known history of sexually inappropriate behavior, aggression, psychosis, delusions, paranoia, irritability, and agitation. Staff and psychiatric notes repeatedly described ongoing sexually inappropriate behavior, increased aggression toward staff and other residents, physical contact with other residents, and attempts to enter other residents’ rooms, with redirection often ineffective. Despite this, the facility’s MDS assessments in August and October documented no behavioral symptoms, the behavior care area did not trigger, and the comprehensive care plan did not include a behavioral problem or interventions for these behaviors. Additional facility documentation showed that staff were aware of repeated incidents involving the aggressive resident’s sexually inappropriate contact with staff and targeting of others. Behavioral nursing notes described the resident pushing a female resident down the hallway toward her room, grabbing a CNA’s arm and trying to put his arms around her, and later grabbing CNAs’ legs and buttocks during care. A speech therapist reported that the resident leaned over her and kissed her face in his room. Behavior Review Committee notes in November recorded episodes of touching female caregivers inappropriately and identified triggers, but recommended only reminders, redirection, and encouragement of activities, without evidence of increased supervision, modified staff assignments, or other protective interventions. These behaviors and risks were not incorporated into the resident’s care plan or CNA Kardex, and the DON later acknowledged that behavioral care plans and Kardex entries were not updated and that she had assumed, without verification, that the Unit Manager was doing so. The resident who was abused was severely cognitively impaired with dementia and anxiety disorder and had not been assessed or documented as able to consent to sexual contact, contrary to facility policy. Nursing notes shortly before the incident recorded that this resident and her family were fearful of the aggressive resident, with the resident crying, expressing fear that men were outside her door to harm her, and specifically identifying the aggressive resident as someone who made her feel uncomfortable and scared. On the day of the incident, staff and a family member observed the aggressive resident pacing the hallway, repeatedly standing in his doorway and looking into the cognitively impaired resident’s room. An LPN was alerted that he was attempting to enter the room and then observed him inside, positioned over the resident in bed, holding her hands down with one hand and pushing her shoulder back into the bed with the other while attempting to get on top of her. Afterward, the cognitively impaired resident exhibited ongoing emotional distress, crying, fear of that man coming into her room again, and a desire to leave the facility, with repeated social services and nursing documentation of anxiety, fear of individuals entering her room, and need for frequent reassurance. Despite these events and the facility’s own abuse policy defining sexual abuse as nonconsensual sexual contact and requiring assessment of capacity to consent, the administrative team did not initially treat the incident as abuse. The SSD/Assistant ED and ED stated they believed the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched and to the male resident entering her room, but they could provide no supporting assessment or documentation. The SSD/Assistant ED described the facility’s practice as gathering information and then deciding as a team whether to report to the state, and reported that the ED, SSD, and DON decided this incident did not need to be reported because they did not feel it met the definition of abuse. The ED, who served as abuse coordinator, stated there had not been recent incidents requiring reporting because the leadership team had not determined that abuse had occurred. The DON similarly stated she had not identified the incident as abuse based on her belief that the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched. The surveyors determined that the facility failed to promptly recognize, assess, and intervene to address known behaviors and failed to develop and implement a comprehensive behavioral care plan to protect other residents, resulting in abuse and psychosocial harm.
Failure to Immediately Report Alleged Abuse and Injuries of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to immediately report multiple allegations and incidents of potential abuse, including injuries of unknown origin, to external authorities such as law enforcement and the State Survey Agency (SSA), as required by federal regulations and the facility’s own Abuse Reporting and Prevention policy. The policy required all staff to immediately report any observation, suspicion, or information related to possible abuse to facility leadership, and required the Executive Director (ED) or designee to report all alleged abuse to state agencies within two hours. Abuse was defined broadly to include physical, mental, and sexual abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, and mistreatment, including abuse perpetrated by other residents. The policy also specified that any willful act in a resident‑to‑resident physical altercation that resulted in physical injury, mental anguish, and/or pain was reportable. One key incident occurred when an LPN observed a male resident with a history of sexual behaviors physically restraining a severely cognitively impaired female resident in her bed. The LPN saw the male resident positioned over the female resident, holding her hands down with one hand and pushing her left shoulder back into the bed with the other while attempting to get on top of her. The LPN reported this to the Social Services Director/Assistant ED and the DON, but was told the situation was speculation and not to “make a mountain out of a molehill.” Facility documentation and SSA records showed no evidence that this allegation was reported to law enforcement or the SSA. The SSD/Assistant ED, ED, and DON later stated they had decided the incident did not need to be reported because they did not believe it met the definition of abuse and believed the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched, although they could provide no evidence to support this belief. The ED, who was the abuse coordinator, acknowledged the policy required reporting within two hours if abuse was suspected but stated that recent incidents, including this one, had not been reported because leadership did not determine that abuse had occurred. Additional unreported events included a resident’s allegation that her roommate pushed her to the floor, which was reported by a laundry aide to nursing staff but not reported to the SSA. Several residents with severe cognitive impairment were found with bruises or injuries of unknown origin: one resident had dark purple bruising to the inner thigh extending to the knee and a small outer thigh bruise without an identified cause; another had a pale yellow bruise to the outer knee with no clear link to a prior incident where she had hit her hand, not her knee; another had a bruise to the right eye/cheek area; and another had a bruise to the left upper arm. In each of these cases, the DON documented awareness of the injuries and conducted some level of internal review or investigation, but there was no evidence in facility or SSA records that these injuries of unknown origin were immediately reported to the SSA at the time they were first identified. The SSD/Assistant ED stated that she, the ED, and the DON reviewed these incidents and decided they did not need to be reported because they did not feel they met the definition of abuse. The DON also stated she was not aware she was supposed to report allegations or suspicions of alleged abuse immediately to state agencies, and the ED confirmed that the facility’s practice was to investigate and substantiate incidents before reporting, contrary to policy and federal requirements that all alleged violations, including injuries of unknown origin, be reported immediately. The surveyors determined that this pattern of failing to immediately report allegations and incidents of potential abuse, including the witnessed incident of a resident physically restraining another resident in bed and multiple injuries of unknown origin, constituted noncompliance with 42 CFR §483.12 (F609 – Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation). The failure to report the 01/05/2026 incident involving the male and female residents was identified as Immediate Jeopardy at scope and severity J and also constituted Substandard Quality of Care under 42 CFR §483.12. The facility’s leadership, including the ED, DON, SSD/Assistant ED, and a corporate representative, acknowledged that they often decided internally, sometimes with corporate input, whether an occurrence met their definition of abuse before reporting, and that in these cases they had concluded the events were not reportable, despite policy and regulatory requirements to immediately report all allegations and injuries of unknown origin.
Failure in Administration, Care Planning, Abuse Prevention, and Reporting
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to administer operations effectively to meet residents’ needs in the areas of care planning, protection from abuse, and immediate reporting of alleged abuse. The facility admitted a resident with schizophrenia who, according to multiple psychiatric evaluations and behavioral nursing notes beginning in mid‑August 2025, exhibited escalating aggressive and sexually inappropriate behaviors and was identified as being at risk for sexually acting out. Despite this documented pattern of behavior during the look‑back period for the resident’s annual MDS assessment dated late August 2025, the facility did not identify behavioral symptoms toward others on the MDS, and the behavioral care area did not trigger for care planning. The comprehensive care plan created from that assessment did not include a problem or interventions related to behaviors, and no behavioral care plan was developed until January 9, 2026, after a serious incident had already occurred. During this period without a behavioral care plan, the resident continued to display aggressive behavior, mood instability, irritability, and psychotic symptoms, as documented in subsequent psychiatric evaluations, behavioral notes, and Behavior Review Committee documentation through November 2025. The Unit Manager later confirmed that the resident did not have a behavioral care plan prior to the January 5, 2026 incident and stated that both she and the DON should have been updating the care plan but did not. The Unit Manager reported that the DON had asked her not to document resident behaviors and that when she did document them, the documentation was changed, which contributed to the absence of a behavioral care plan. The DON acknowledged that behavioral care plans were expected to be reviewed and revised when incidents were reported, that it was important to have a behavioral care plan in place so staff would be aware of behavioral risks, and that the resident’s behaviors were not documented in the Kardex. The DON stated she assumed the Unit Manager was updating the care plan and Kardex but did not review them and did not know how the resident lacked a behavioral care plan until four days after the incident and two days after the state survey agency began its investigation. On January 5, 2026, an LPN entered the room of a severely cognitively impaired female resident and observed the male resident positioned over her, with one leg on the bed, holding her hands down with one hand and pushing her back into the bed with the other while attempting to get on top of her. The LPN reported this to the SSD/Assistant ED and the DON and was told the situation was speculation and not to make a mountain out of a molehill. Subsequent documentation for the female resident, including behavior notes, a psychiatric evaluation, and social services notes, showed that after the incident she was very upset and crying, fearful, uncomfortable, did not want to remain at the facility, and exhibited increased anxiety and worsening emotional symptoms. The SSD/Assistant ED stated that she, the ED, and the DON decided the witnessed incident did not meet the definition of abuse and believed that the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched. The ED, who served as the abuse coordinator, similarly stated that she, the DON, and SSD/Assistant ED had not determined that abuse had occurred and believed the cognitively impaired resident could consent to the male resident coming into her room and touching her, but could provide no evidence to support this belief. The DON also stated she did not identify the incident as abuse because she believed the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched. The facility also failed to immediately report this allegation of abuse and other allegations or injuries of unknown origin as required. The LPN’s report of the January 5, 2026 incident to the DON and SSD/Assistant ED was not reported to outside agencies, including law enforcement or the state survey agency. The SSD/Assistant ED stated that facility practice was to gather information, discuss as a team, and then decide whether to report to the Office of Inspector General, and that the leadership team decided the incident did not need to be reported because they did not feel it met the definition of abuse, again citing the belief that the cognitively impaired resident could consent. The ED acknowledged that policy required suspected abuse to be reported within two hours but stated they decided the incident was not reportable for the same reason. The DON initially expressed uncertainty about whether the incident should have been reported and, after reviewing the Abuse and Reporting Policy, stated that a leadership member should have reported it and confirmed that incidents involving alleged sexual misconduct between residents should be reported. Further review of facility investigations showed additional failures to immediately report allegations of abuse or injuries of unknown origin that did not rise to the level of immediate jeopardy. These included resident‑to‑resident abuse on December 26, 2025, and injuries of unknown origin for several residents on dates in 2025 and early 2026. The DON stated she was not aware she was supposed to report allegations or suspicions of alleged abuse immediately to state agencies. The ED stated there had not been any recent incidents requiring reporting and that she, the SSD/Assistant ED, and the DON made decisions not to report incidents, and that she often reached out to corporate for direction. A corporate Director of Clinical Reimbursement confirmed that allegations of abuse should be reported within two hours but was aware the facility would investigate first before reporting, and indicated that in the case of the incident between the two residents, corporate determined it was not a reportable allegation and characterized it as “just touching.” These combined failures in care planning, abuse prevention, and mandatory reporting led surveyors to identify immediate jeopardy under 42 CFR §483.70 (F835).
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Alleged Abuse and Injuries of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to conduct thorough investigations into multiple allegations of abuse and injuries of unknown origin, as required by its Abuse Reporting and Prevention policy. The policy, reviewed in July 2025, required that any report of abuse or injury of undetermined origin trigger a full investigation by the Executive Director (ED) or designee, including immediate resident examination for injury, obtaining written statements from all persons with knowledge of the incident, and conducting pertinent interviews with residents, staff on duty, and others present. Surveyors found that these steps were not consistently followed for several residents with alleged abuse or unexplained injuries. In one case, a laundry aide found a resident on the floor between the bed and recliner; the resident stated her roommate had pushed her, and the aide reported this to the nurse. A notepad “investigation” by the DON documented the allegation, the roommate’s denial, and a staff reenactment concluding the event could not have occurred as described, but there was no written statement from the laundry aide and no evidence of skin assessments for either resident. Another resident was found with a pale yellow bruise on the left outer knee; the DON’s handwritten note linked this to an incident 10 days earlier when the resident was aggressive and hit her hand on a table, with RN documentation that the resident had been kicking her legs but without witnessing contact with any object. There were no witness statements, no interviews with other staff who had provided care around the time of the injury, and no documented skin assessment, yet the cause of the bruise was attributed to the earlier incident without sufficient supporting facts or exploration of other possible causes. Additional residents with injuries of unknown origin also lacked thorough investigations. One resident was noted by an LPN to have dark purple bruising on the inner left thigh down to the knee and a small bruise on the outer thigh, with the resident unable to state the cause; the incident report contained no skin assessment and no staff statements. Another resident had a bruise to the right eye/cheek area; the DON’s notepad entry stated staff interviews were conducted and concluded the resident caused it by rubbing his face, but there were no written witness statements or complete skin assessment documented. A further resident with contractures was reported to have a bruise on the left upper arm; the DON documented staff interviews and concluded the bruise occurred during a gown change with no suspicion of abuse, yet there were no written statements from direct care staff and no evidence of a skin assessment. Interviews with the SSD/Assistant ED, ED, and DON confirmed that investigations were based on interviews and team discussion, and the DON stated that once they determined how injuries happened, they did not pursue further investigation, despite the lack of documentation required by facility policy.
Failure to Assess Resident for Safe Self-Administration of Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to evaluate a resident for the ability to safely self-administer medications, as required by its own policy. An open bottle of prescribed Nystatin Powder was observed on the resident's bed, and the resident reported self-applying the medication throughout the day. There was no documentation or assessment by the interdisciplinary team to determine if the resident was clinically appropriate to self-administer medications. The facility's policy requires such an assessment upon admission, quarterly, and with any change of condition, but no such evaluation was found in the resident's records. The resident, who had a diagnosis of hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and dementia, was assessed as cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15. Despite this, staff interviews confirmed that no self-administration evaluation had been completed, and medications were not kept in a locked area as required. Nursing staff admitted to routinely leaving medications at the bedside for the resident to take at her discretion, contrary to facility policy and without proper assessment. The administrator confirmed that residents were not supposed to have medications at the bedside and that no residents had been approved for self-administration.
Resident's Rights Violated by Unauthorized Wander Guard Placement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's right to self-determination and communication by placing a wander guard on a resident without consent. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy and moderate cognitive impairment, was assessed as having a minimal risk for elopement. Despite this, the facility applied a wander guard bracelet on the resident, which was against the resident's wishes and without proper assessment or consent. Interviews with the resident and staff revealed that the resident had previously signed himself in and out of the facility without issues and was capable of making decisions regarding his movements. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the wander guard, stating he was not a prisoner and had the right to leave the facility. Staff, including LPNs and CNAs, confirmed that the resident had safely left the facility on multiple occasions and was capable of living outside the facility. The Director of Nursing and the Medical Director acknowledged that the resident had the right to refuse the wander guard and that the facility should have consulted the medical team before applying it. The facility's actions were not aligned with the resident's rights, as the resident was not considered an elopement risk and had the cognitive ability to make decisions about his care and movements.
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 17 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 Corbin
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hillcrest Health And Rehabilitation Center | 1.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| The Heritage Nursing And Rehabilitation Facility | 3.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Corbin Health And Rehabilitation Center | 3.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Barbourville Health And Rehabilitation Center | 12 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Laurel Heights Home For The Elderly | 12.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Christian Health Center Corbin.
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.