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 Cumberland Nursing And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to follow its abuse reporting policy when an allegation of physical abuse involving a resident with mild cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions was reported by the resident’s family member. The Administrator was notified of the allegation that someone had smacked the resident across the face, but the initial report to the state survey agency was not submitted until more than three and a half hours later, exceeding the required two-hour timeframe. Facility documentation did not show that law enforcement was notified, despite policy requiring reporting of suspected crimes, and interviews with the SSD, DON, and Administrator confirmed that the expected practice was to report such allegations promptly to the state survey agency and law enforcement when applicable.
Two residents reported serious allegations—one of missing money and identification and another of being slapped by a staff member—but the facility failed to conduct comprehensive investigations as required by its abuse policy. In the misappropriation case, a cognitively intact resident named a specific staff member by first name, and the schedule showed an SRNA with that name worked during the alleged timeframe, yet that SRNA was never interviewed or asked for a statement, and the DON acknowledged not knowing the investigative process. In the physical abuse case, a resident with mild cognitive impairment reported being slapped and told a family member that a manager over the office was responsible, but the facility obtained statements only from some floor staff, did not interview office staff, did not obtain statements from all staff who worked the relevant shifts, and limited resident interviews and skin assessments to one hall. These actions and omissions resulted in incomplete investigations of both abuse-related allegations.
Housekeeping services failed to maintain clean and sanitary conditions in multiple resident rooms and all shower rooms, with a black, foul-smelling substance observed on tiles, baseboards, and bathroom fixtures. Staff, including the DON and Housekeeping Manager, were unaware of the issue prior to surveyor observation, and facility policies requiring a clean environment were not followed.
Surveyors found that two of four facility corridors had handrails that were loose, missing screws, or had missing corner joints, with no evidence of maintenance reports or work orders addressing these issues. Staff interviews revealed that both maintenance and nursing staff were aware of the loose handrails but did not report or address them, and there was no system in place to monitor handrail condition.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and physical limitations did not receive necessary nail care, resulting in long, dirty fingernails observed on multiple occasions. Despite facility policy and care plan requirements for daily nail checks and hygiene, documentation and staff interviews revealed inconsistent provision of this ADL, and the resident's family expressed concern about the lack of proper grooming.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Physical Abuse to State Agency and Law Enforcement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of physical abuse to the state survey agency and law enforcement within the required two-hour timeframe. Facility policy titled “Abuse Prohibition Standard of Practice,” last reviewed 03/2026, required that alleged violations be reported immediately to the Administrator or designee and to the state survey agency, adult protective services, and other required agencies, including law enforcement when applicable, within specific time frames. The policy also required the Administrator or designee to report suspicion of a crime to local law enforcement authorities. Resident 94, admitted on 06/19/2025, had a medical history including anemia, difficulty in walking, dislocation of an internal right hip prosthesis, muscle weakness, and other symbolic dysfunctions. An admission MDS with an ARD of 06/24/2025 showed a BIMS score of 10, indicating mild cognitive impairment, and the care plan documented impaired cognition and psychosocial adjustment difficulties related to anemia. On 07/01/2025, the facility generated an Initial Report indicating that a family member reported the resident had stated someone smacked them across the face the previous day after lunch or dinner. The Administrator was notified of this allegation at 9:45 AM. An email from the Administrator to the state survey agency showed the initial report was sent at 1:41 PM, more than three and a half hours after the Administrator was notified, exceeding the two-hour reporting requirement. The Initial Report did not indicate that local law enforcement was notified. During interviews, the SSD, DON, and Administrator all acknowledged that allegations of abuse should be reported to the state survey agency within two hours, and the Administrator stated that their process was to notify law enforcement when a resident requested or when there was a chance a law had been broken, but she did not follow the appropriate process in this case.
Failure to Conduct Comprehensive Abuse and Misappropriation Investigations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to conduct prompt, comprehensive investigations into allegations of abuse and misappropriation of resident property, contrary to its Abuse Prohibition Standard of Practice policy. That policy required the administrator or designee to oversee internal investigations of all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, and injuries of unknown origin, including interviews of all involved persons and others who might have knowledge of the allegations. For one resident, the facility did not interview the staff member specifically named by the resident as the alleged perpetrator of misappropriation, despite documentation showing that a staff member with that first name was scheduled and worked during the timeframe of the alleged incident. For another resident, the facility did not obtain statements from all staff who worked during the relevant shifts and did not interview or obtain statements from office staff, even though the allegation involved a manager in an office area. One resident, admitted with diagnoses including aftercare following removal of a knee joint prosthesis, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, had a BIMS score of 13 indicating intact cognition, but was also care planned for progressive decline in intellectual functioning, memory deficits, and anxiety with agitation. This resident reported that $350, a driver’s license, and an insurance card were missing from their wallet or purse and identified by first name the person they believed took the items. The facility’s initial and final reports to the state survey agency documented the allegation and noted that no cash was recorded on the admission inventory and that no staff by the alleged name worked on the day the allegation was reported. However, the facility’s monthly schedule showed that an SRNA with the same first name as the alleged perpetrator was scheduled and worked the evening and night shift spanning the date of the alleged incident. The investigation packet contained 20 staff statements, but no statement from this SRNA or from any staff member with the alleged first name. The SSD stated she obtained statements from everyone who worked that day and did not interview the SRNA because she believed the SRNA did not work that day, while the SRNA later confirmed she had worked that shift, knew the resident, and was never asked for a statement. The DON acknowledged she did not interview the SRNA, was unaware of the investigative process, and did not know if there was a process for investigating such allegations, and the Administrator, who was the Abuse Coordinator, confirmed that the SRNA was not interviewed despite the resident naming a staff member with that first name. Another resident, admitted with diagnoses including anemia, difficulty in walking, dislocation of an internal right hip prosthesis, muscle weakness, and other symbolic dysfunctions, had a BIMS score of 10 indicating mild cognitive impairment and was care planned for impaired cognition and psychosocial adjustment difficulties. This resident’s family member reported that the resident said someone smacked them across the face after a meal, and a typed SSD statement documented that the family member reported the resident said the manager over the office smacked them. The facility’s final report stated that the resident reported being slapped in a hall after a meal, could not identify the meal or describe the individual, and said they reported the incident to an employee in the back office. The investigation packet included 17 staff statements from floor staff (SRNAs, LPNs, and RNs) but no statements from any office staff, despite the allegation involving a manager over the office and a report to an employee in the back office. Daily staffing guides showed that 34 different floor staff worked during the two 12-hour shifts on the day of the alleged incident and the following day shift, yet statements were not obtained from multiple identified RNs, LPNs, SRNAs, and KMAs who worked those shifts. The facility conducted skin assessments and interviews only for residents on the hall where the resident resided and did not complete resident interviews or skin assessments for residents on other halls. In interviews, multiple staff who had worked during the relevant timeframe stated they were never asked about any resident being slapped or asked to provide statements. The DON stated that her role in abuse investigations was to perform skin assessments and obtain staff statements, believed that therapy and office staff had been interviewed, and did not review surveillance cameras, while the Administrator stated they narrowed the investigation and did not review cameras because they only showed hallways and not the back hallway where offices and therapy areas were located. Overall, for both residents, the facility did not follow its own policy requirement that investigations be prompt, comprehensive, and include interviews of all involved persons and others who might have knowledge of the allegations. In the misappropriation case, the named SRNA who worked during the alleged timeframe was not interviewed or asked for a statement, and the DON acknowledged lack of familiarity with the investigative process. In the physical abuse case, the facility did not obtain statements from all staff who worked during the relevant shifts, did not interview office staff despite the allegation involving an office manager and a report to a back office employee, and limited resident assessments and interviews to one hall, without extending them to other halls where potential witnesses or victims might have been located. These omissions in investigative steps led to incomplete investigations of the reported allegations of abuse and misappropriation of property for the two residents.
Failure to Maintain Clean and Sanitary Resident and Shower Areas
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate housekeeping services to ensure a clean and sanitary environment for four of 21 sampled residents, as well as all four shower rooms used by residents. Observations revealed a black, fuzzy-appearing substance with a strong odor, potentially indicative of mold, present around sinks, in bathrooms, on tiles, and in other high-moisture areas. Specific findings included cracked tiles, missing rubber edging on furniture exposing sharp wood, and the presence of garbage and foul-smelling substances in resident rooms and shower areas. The black substance was noted on baseboards, bathroom fixtures, and shower chairs, with some areas also exhibiting cracked or damaged surfaces. Interviews with staff indicated a lack of awareness regarding the presence of the black substance. The DON and Housekeeping Manager both stated they were unaware of the issue prior to the survey, and the Housekeeping Manager confirmed that while deep cleaning was scheduled weekly, the black substance had not been addressed. The Maintenance Assistant identified the issue as a housekeeping matter, and the Administrator stated that housekeeping services were contracted out and were expected to maintain cleanliness, but she had no knowledge of the black substance prior to the survey. Facility policies reviewed indicated a requirement for a clean, safe, and comfortable environment, but these were not followed as evidenced by the observed conditions.
Failure to Maintain Secure Handrails in Facility Corridors
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that two of four facility corridors lacked firmly secured handrails on both sides, as required for resident safety. During a tour, multiple handrails in the A and B halls were found to be loose, missing screws, or missing corner joints, with some handrails easily shifting or exposing blunt ends when pressure was applied. Review of the facility's maintenance logs revealed no reports or work orders related to these handrail issues. The facility's policy on Resident Rights referenced a safe environment but did not include specific procedures for handrail maintenance or inspection. Interviews with staff confirmed awareness of the loose handrails. The Assistant Director of Maintenance acknowledged responsibility for checking handrails but had not identified or reported any issues, despite recent walkthroughs with the Administrator. A restorative nurse admitted to noticing loose handrails over the past three months but did not report them. The Housekeeping Supervisor stated that housekeepers clean but do not inspect handrails. The Administrator was unaware of the handrail issues and confirmed there were no checklists or monitoring systems in place for handrail condition.
Failure to Provide Adequate Nail Care for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident with Alzheimer's disease and left-sided weakness, who was severely cognitively impaired, did not receive necessary assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), specifically nail care. The facility's policy required daily observation and trimming of nails as appropriate, and the resident's care plan included staff responsibility for maintaining nail hygiene. Despite this, observations on multiple occasions revealed the resident had long, dirty fingernails with a black substance underneath most nails. Documentation showed the last recorded nail care was several weeks prior to the observations, and staff interviews confirmed that nail care was typically provided during showers, but there was no evidence it was consistently performed for this resident. Interviews with staff, including a State Registered Nurse Aid (SRNA), a Registered Nurse (RN), the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Administrator, revealed an expectation that staff check and provide nail care daily. However, the resident continued to be observed with untrimmed and dirty nails, indicating a failure to follow facility policy and the resident's care plan. The family member of the resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the resident's nail hygiene, noting that the facility was usually attentive to this need. The deficiency was based on direct observation, record review, and staff and family interviews.
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 16 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 Somerset
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somerwoods Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center | 0.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital Scu | 1.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Somerset Nursing And Rehabilitation Facility | 1.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Rockcastle Regional Hospital And Respiratory Care | 23.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Rockcastle Health & Rehabilitation Center | 24.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Cumberland Nursing And Rehabilitation Center.
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.