Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around December 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 Princeton Nursing & Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to follow professional standards for food service safety, as observed during a survey. Multiple food items in the reach-in cooler were found opened but not labeled or dated, contrary to the facility's policy. Interviews with the Dietary Manager and DON confirmed that the facility's expectations were not met, as the dietary staff did not ensure all items were labeled and dated. This failure potentially affected 96 of the facility's 98 residents.
A facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident receiving enteral feedings, resulting in the resident being observed lying flat during feeding, contrary to the care plan's requirement for an elevated head of bed to prevent aspiration. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent communication and adherence to care plans, despite facility policies emphasizing their importance.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment experienced a fall with major injury, and the facility failed to update the care plan to reflect changes in interventions. The IDT recommended a perimeter defining mattress, which was not documented in the care plan, and a high rise mattress was incorrectly listed as active. Staff interviews revealed communication gaps and inconsistent care plan updates.
A resident with a history of chronic conditions experienced a fall and subsequent leg pain, but an x-ray order was delayed due to a failure to enter it into the system promptly. The x-ray, once completed, revealed a fracture, and the resident was sent to the ER. Staff interviews highlighted communication and documentation issues, with the UM failing to enter the order during a shift change.
A resident at risk for falls did not receive the physician-ordered high rise mattress, leading to a fall and severe fracture. Despite policies requiring preventative measures, the facility failed to implement the necessary intervention. Interviews revealed a lack of documentation and communication among staff, contributing to the oversight.
A facility failed to ensure proper care for a resident with a feeding tube, leading to potential risks. The feeding set was not replaced within the recommended 24-hour period, and the resident was observed lying flat during feedings, contrary to the care plan. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in understanding and implementing the facility's policies on enteral feeding, contributing to the deficiency.
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program, as staff did not adhere to hand hygiene protocols during catheter care and meal tray distribution. A resident with urinary issues received improper catheter care, with CNAs not washing hands or changing gloves appropriately. Additionally, a CNA did not sanitize hands between serving meal trays to residents, violating facility policy.
Deficiency in Food Storage and Labeling Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards for food service safety, as observed during a survey on 09/08/2024. Multiple food items in the reach-in cooler were found to be opened but not labeled or dated, which is against the facility's policy. The policy, as outlined in the facility's documents titled 'Safe Standards and Procedures, Food Handling,' requires that foods intended for storage beyond 24 hours must be labeled with the item name, preparation date, use-by date within seven days, and the employee's initials. The observation revealed several items, including breakfast gravy, yogurt, chicken soup, and packaged ham slices, that were not labeled or dated, and some items were past their expiration dates. Interviews with the Dietary Manager and the Director of Nursing confirmed that the facility's expectations were not met. The Dietary Manager stated that food products should be labeled and dated, with two dates indicating when the item was placed in the cooler and when it should be removed. The Director of Nursing expected the contracted kitchen staff to follow their policies and procedures related to food storage. The Administrator also stated that the dietary department, being a contract company, had its own policies, and she expected the dietary staff to ensure all items placed in the coolers were labeled and dated. This failure had the potential to affect 96 of the facility's 98 residents who consumed food from the kitchen.
Failure to Implement Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two of the three sampled residents, specifically for a resident with a history of gastrostomy tube placement and enteral feedings. The care plan for this resident included maintaining an upright posture and elevating the head of the bed during feedings to reduce the risk of aspiration. However, an observation revealed that the resident was lying flat on the bed while the enteral feeding was infusing, contrary to the care plan's interventions. Interviews with facility staff, including CNAs, LPNs, RNs, the MDS Coordinator, the Director of Nursing, and the Administrator, highlighted a lack of consistent communication and adherence to the care plan. CNAs reported relying on verbal updates from previous shifts rather than consistently checking the electronic care plan system. The LPN acknowledged that the CNAs had not followed the care plan and intended to educate them on proper positioning. The RN and MDS Coordinator described processes for updating and verifying care plans, but the deficiency indicated a gap in implementation. The facility's policies on comprehensive care plans, resident rights, and nursing services emphasized the importance of following care plans to meet residents' needs. Despite these policies, the staff interviews and observations demonstrated a failure to ensure that the care plan interventions were consistently implemented, leading to the deficiency noted in the report.
Failure to Update Care Plan After Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan for a resident, identified as R26, was reviewed and revised by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) following a fall with a major injury. The IDT recommended a perimeter defining mattress (PDM) as an intervention, which was placed on the resident's bed but later removed at the resident's request. However, this change was not reflected in the resident's falls care plan, which inaccurately continued to list a high rise mattress as an active intervention, despite it not being in use. The resident, R26, had a history of malignant neoplasm of the breast, primary generalized arthritis, and hypertensive chronic kidney disease. Initially assessed with intact cognition, the resident later showed severe cognitive impairment. The facility's care plan for R26 included interventions for falls risk due to incontinence, psychoactive drug use, and impaired mobility. Despite the IDT's recommendation for a PDM, the care plan did not include this intervention, nor did it reflect the removal of the high rise mattress, which was discontinued according to physician orders. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of clarity and communication regarding the updating of care plans. Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) accessed care plans through the facility's electronic health record but did not have full visibility of the nursing care plan. The MDS Coordinator and Director of Nursing (DON) indicated that care plans should be updated with new interventions, but there was no consistent auditing process to ensure this was done. The Administrator expected care plans to be updated with any changes, but the deficiency in R26's care plan indicated a failure in this process.
Delay in X-ray Order Entry Leads to Fracture Diagnosis
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that medical provider orders were entered upon receipt for a resident, leading to a delay in obtaining necessary medical imaging. A registered nurse (RN) contacted an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) to report a resident's right leg pain, bruising, and swelling. The APRN had ordered an x-ray the previous night, but there was no documented evidence of the order in the resident's medical record. The x-ray order was not entered into the system until the following day, resulting in a delay in the resident receiving the x-ray. The resident, who had a history of hypertensive chronic kidney disease, unspecified convulsions, and other conditions, experienced a fall from bed, which was documented in the nursing progress notes. Despite the fall, no new orders were received at that time. The resident was monitored, but there was no documentation of pain or abnormalities until the following day when the RN contacted the APRN again. The x-ray, once ordered, revealed a fracture of the distal femur, and the resident was subsequently sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Interviews with the staff involved revealed a breakdown in communication and documentation. The unit manager (UM) admitted to receiving the x-ray order but did not enter it into the system, possibly due to shift change. The mobile x-ray provider confirmed that no order was received on the initial date, and the x-ray was only completed the day after the order was finally entered. The director of nursing (DON) and the administrator both acknowledged the expectation that orders should be entered promptly, but there was uncertainty about whether a stat order would have expedited the process.
Failure to Implement Physician-Ordered Safety Measures Leads to Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the use of assistive devices to prevent injury for a resident, identified as R26, who was at risk for falls. Despite a physician's order for a high rise mattress to prevent falls from the bed, the resident was observed to have a standard mattress in place. This oversight led to a fall on 6/23/2024, resulting in a severe fracture that required surgical intervention. The facility's policies on falls and accidents emphasized the need for implementing preventative measures and ensuring that physician's orders are carried out, which was not adhered to in this case. R26 was admitted to the facility with multiple health issues, including arthritis, chronic kidney disease, and a history of breast cancer. The resident was assessed to have severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on assistance for mobility and transfers. Despite these assessments, the care plan did not reflect the necessary intervention of a high rise mattress, which was crucial for the resident's safety. The facility's records and interviews revealed a lack of documentation and follow-through on the physician's order for the mattress, contributing to the resident's fall and subsequent injury. Interviews with facility staff, including the RN, Director of Maintenance, MDS Coordinator, DON, and Administrator, highlighted a breakdown in communication and procedural adherence. The maintenance department was responsible for mattress changes, but there was no record of a work order for the high rise mattress until after the fall occurred. The MDS Coordinator and DON were unclear about the specifics of the mattress intervention, and the Administrator acknowledged that verbal requests for changes were often forgotten. This lack of clarity and documentation led to the failure to implement the necessary safety measures for R26, resulting in the resident's fall and injury.
Failure to Adhere to Enteral Feeding Protocols
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident receiving enteral feeding was provided with appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications. The manufacturer's instruction manual for the resident's feeding system indicated that the feeding set should be replaced every 24 hours to prevent bacterial growth. However, observations revealed that the resident's enteral feeding bottle had been hanging for more than 24 hours, specifically for 27 hours, which was against the recommended practice. Interviews with staff, including an LPN, RN, and the Director of Nursing, showed inconsistencies in their understanding of the facility's policy, with some staff believing the feeding set was good for 48 hours, while others acknowledged the 24-hour requirement. Additionally, the facility's care plan for the resident required the head of the bed to be elevated during enteral feedings to reduce the risk of aspiration. Observations on multiple occasions showed the resident lying flat while the feeding was infusing, contrary to the care plan. Interviews with CNAs and nursing staff revealed a lack of awareness and training regarding the importance of maintaining the resident in an upright position during feedings. The CNAs involved were not specifically informed about the resident's need for sitting up, and there was an assumption that the resident was left lying flat after care was provided. The facility's policies on assisted nutrition and hydration, as well as the appropriate use of feeding tubes, emphasized the need to prevent complications such as aspiration pneumonia. However, the failure to adhere to these policies and the lack of consistent staff education and competency in managing enteral feeding systems contributed to the deficiency. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator acknowledged the need for the feeding system to be changed every 24 hours and the importance of elevating the head of the bed to prevent aspiration, but these practices were not consistently followed by the staff.
Infection Control Deficiencies in Catheter Care and Meal Tray Distribution
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to establish and maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by multiple observations of staff not adhering to infection control guidelines. Specifically, during catheter care for a resident, staff did not follow proper hand hygiene protocols. Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) were observed not washing their hands after removing a soiled brief and before beginning catheter care. Additionally, they did not change gloves after cleaning stool from the resident, and they touched clean items with contaminated gloves, which is against the facility's policy. The resident involved, identified as R2, was admitted with diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy, retention of urine, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. The resident was cognitively intact, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. During the catheter care, CNAs failed to use a clean technique, such as not repositioning the cloth to clean areas and contaminating their protective clothing with stool. These actions were contrary to the facility's policy on catheter care and hand hygiene. Additionally, during meal tray distribution, a CNA was observed not using hand sanitizer or washing hands between serving trays to different residents. This was a direct violation of the facility's hand hygiene policy, which requires sanitizing hands between resident rooms and washing hands after every third room. Interviews with staff confirmed awareness of the policy, yet the CNA did not adhere to it, potentially compromising resident safety.
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 34 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 Princeton
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dawson Springs Health And Rehabilitation Center | 11.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Lake Barkley Health & Rehabilitation | 11.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Tradewater Pointe | 11.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 8 | 0 |
| River's Bend Retirement Community | 13.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Shady Lawn Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 16.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Princeton Nursing & Rehabilitation.
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.