Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around October 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 Medilodge Of Mt. Pleasant during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors found that nursing staff did not consistently complete required daily checks of the emergency crash cart and AED, as documented on the facility’s Crash Cart Daily Check Off Log. Over several months, there were numerous days and multiple extended gaps with no nurse initials verifying that the 28 listed items, including AED readiness and supply status, had been checked. This occurred despite RN and LPN job descriptions assigning responsibility for maintaining safe, ready emergency equipment and supplies and assisting with emergency measures.
A resident with DM developed a new in-house acquired diabetic foot ulcer on the left lateral mid-foot that was documented and treated by nursing, but there was no documentation that a medical provider was notified of the new wound or that a provider physically assessed or acknowledged the condition during multiple subsequent visits, which focused instead on constipation and thumb pain. Although a treatment order for the left foot wound was entered, a nursing care plan for the wound was not developed until after the survey began, and there was no documented collaboration between nursing and the medical provider to create a comprehensive care plan. During interview, a UM reported that mid-level providers review wound photos but could not provide evidence that any provider had reviewed photos or evaluated the wound.
Surveyors found that nursing staff failed to label and date medications and biologicals in use as required. An RN showed surveyors a medication cart containing an opened insulin pen that was in use but not dated, and the RN did not know when it had been placed into service, despite its shortened use life after opening. In the medication room refrigerator, surveyors also found two opened vials of PPD solution that were not dated, even though the manufacturer’s instructions require tracking the date of first use to ensure discard within 30 days. These practices did not comply with the facility’s own medication storage policy or manufacturer recommendations.
A resident with diabetes and a newly identified diabetic foot ulcer on the left mid-foot had a physician-ordered daily dressing treatment documented on the TAR, but nursing staff left multiple days un-initialed with no corresponding progress notes explaining whether care was completed, delayed, or refused, and no documentation that the provider was notified. The resident’s care plan was not updated to include the new wound until after surveyors initiated their review. The UM and DON reported the resident often dictated timing and choice of caregivers, but acknowledged the absence of documentation regarding refusals, delays, or education, despite RN and LPN job descriptions requiring accurate implementation and documentation of treatments and resident assessments.
A resident with diabetes developed a new in-house–acquired diabetic foot ulcer on the left lateral mid-foot that was measured and dressed, but there was no documentation that a physician was notified of the new wound or its characteristics. The facility’s policy required prompt physician notification for changes with potential to require physician intervention and for new treatments, and RN/LPN job descriptions required reporting and recording pertinent observations. The unit manager confirmed that the record contained no evidence of provider notification or documented review of wound photographs.
A resident with DM developed a new in-house acquired diabetic foot ulcer on the left lateral mid-foot that was identified, measured, and dressed, but nursing did not timely revise the comprehensive care plan to include goals, benchmarks, and interventions for the new wound. Review of the EMR and care plan showed that a specific nursing care plan for this wound was not initiated until after surveyors began their review, and a UM acknowledged that the wound care plan was only started at that time.
Kitchen food safety practices were not maintained when the ice machine drain line lacked an air gap and was below the flood rim of the drain. Dietary staff were also observed using a hand sink to fill water pitchers before placing them in the refrigerator, even though the CDM stated pitchers were supposed to be filled from the prep sink.
Lack of Active Water Management Plan for Legionella Control: Surveyors observed unused or unclear plumbing conditions in shower areas, including unattached water lines in one shower room and a shower area being used for storage in another. The MD stated there was no set flushing schedule, and lines were only flushed when a room was vacated for a new occupant or after a positive Legionella sample, although a later water management document indicated a flushing schedule existed.
A facility failed to keep call lights within reach for two dependent residents. One resident with difficulty walking and anxiety had a call light left under the bed, and another resident with overactive bladder and anxiety had a call light hanging behind the headboard and out of reach. Both residents said they could usually use their call lights, and a CNA stated both were able to call for assistance.
Failure to notify the resident's representative of a fall with injury. A resident with dementia and muscle weakness fell in his room and sustained a superficial cut to the eye and wrist pain. Staff contacted the on-call nurse and physician, but there was no documentation that the activated POA was notified at the time of the fall, and the POA later reported she did not receive notification. The DON confirmed there was no record verifying the responsible party was contacted when the injury occurred.
Failure to implement a fall care plan intervention for a resident with dementia and muscle weakness. The resident’s care plan included grip strips in front of the toilet, but an observation found they were missing from the bathroom. The DON stated she was not aware the grip strips were absent and said the floor may have been waxed and the strips not replaced afterward.
A resident with acute respiratory failure, a tracheostomy, and tube feeding for nutrition and hydration had a tube feed bag that was not correctly labeled. The bag only showed a date and time, while the UM/RN stated the expected label should also include the nurse's initials, ordered rate, resident's name, and formula type.
A resident recovering from pneumonia did not receive ordered nebulizer treatments, with the eMAR showing six missed doses and nursing documentation stating she refused the treatments even though she said staff had not offered them and she had not refused. The resident's nebulizer equipment was also observed stored wet in a plastic bag after use, rather than being taken apart, rinsed, air-dried, and then bagged as required by facility policy.
Inaccurate documentation of controlled substance administration. A resident with pneumonia and chronic pain syndrome received Norco for pain, but the CSR did not match the actual administration times. An RN stated she gave the dose with morning meds but recorded a later time to adjust the interval, and the night nurse later entered a time for the prior dose during narcotic count reconciliation. The DON stated nurses were expected to document the precise time a medication was given, especially a controlled substance.
The facility failed to provide adequate smoking supervision for several residents, leading to safety hazards. Residents were observed smoking unsupervised, with some using oxygen tanks or having cognitive impairments. The designated smoking area lacked fire safety equipment, and the facility's policies on supervision and documentation were not consistently followed.
A long-term care facility failed to implement and follow proper infection control practices for residents requiring Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP). A resident with a gastric tube lacked appropriate EBP signage, and staff did not use gowns during high-contact activities. Another resident with C-diff was not managed under correct contact isolation precautions, and staff used hand sanitizer instead of soap and water. Additionally, a resident suspected of having C-diff was not placed in contact isolation, leading to potential cross-contamination with a resident sharing a bathroom.
A facility failed to properly assess and administer tube feedings for a resident with dysphagia. A nurse administered medication through a feeding tube without checking placement or gastric residual, using a syringe to push the medication instead of allowing it to flow by gravity. Interviews revealed inconsistencies in following facility procedures, and the policy was under review to align with updated standards.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment did not receive the influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations despite consent from their POA. The facility's records lacked documentation of administration or refusal, contrary to its policy to offer these vaccinations.
Failure to Consistently Verify Emergency Crash Cart and AED Readiness
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to consistently ensure the readiness of the nurse’s emergency crash cart, including the Automatic External Defibrillator (AED). During an observation and review of the crash cart with an RN, it was reported that night shift nursing staff were responsible for daily checks of the emergency equipment, including inspection for outdated supplies and verification of AED readiness. The facility’s Crash Cart Daily Check Off Log listed 28 items to be checked daily, with a space for nurse initials to confirm the cart’s readiness. Record review of the logs from November 2025 through early February 2026 showed that on 62 days the crash cart’s readiness was not verified by nursing staff. The logs contained multiple gaps of 3 to 5 consecutive days without checks, as well as one gap of 11 days and another of 8 days during which no nurse documented verification of the cart and AED readiness. Job descriptions for RNs and LPNs indicated responsibilities that included ensuring supplies and equipment are maintained in a safe manner, maintaining inventory and supplies, and assisting with or instituting emergency measures for sudden adverse developments in residents. As of the survey exit date, no additional information was provided by the facility regarding these missed checks.
Failure to Ensure Provider Assessment and Care Planning for New Diabetic Foot Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to ensure adequate medical provider supervision for a resident with diabetes mellitus who was admitted to the facility on 12/10/2024. The electronic medical record showed that on 1/13/2026 nursing staff documented a new in-house acquired diabetic foot ulcer on the left lateral mid-foot, including measurements and dressing, but there was no documentation that the medical provider was notified of the new wound or its characteristics. A new physician order for treatment of a left foot pressure injury with betadine and white border gauze in the morning was entered with a start date of 1/14/2026, but the record did not show that the medical provider physically assessed the wound. Progress notes documented medical provider encounters with the resident on 1/16/2026, 1/21/2026, and 2/3/2026, during which constipation and left thumb pain were addressed, but there was no documentation of a physical assessment or acknowledgment of the left foot wound during these visits. The care plan revealed that a nursing care plan for the new wound, first identified on 1/13/2026, was not formulated until after the survey began on 2/9/2026, indicating that prior to that time the medical provider and nursing staff had not collaborated to develop a comprehensive care plan for the wound. During interview, the unit manager stated that mid-level providers review wound photographs but acknowledged there was no documentation that any provider had reviewed photos or evaluated the wound, and no additional documentation was provided by survey exit on 2/10/2026.
Failure to Date Opened Insulin Pen and PPD Vials per Manufacturer Guidelines
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that medications and biologicals were not stored and labeled according to manufacturer recommendations and facility policy. During a review of the C Hall medication cart with an RN, an in-use insulin pen was found that had been opened but was not dated, and the RN stated she did not know when the pen had been placed into service, despite acknowledging that the device has a shortened use life once opened. In a subsequent review of the wet medication room and medication refrigerator with the same RN, two opened vials of Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) solution were found without dates indicating when they had been placed into service, and the RN reported these should have been dated by nursing. Manufacturer product information for PPD specified that a vial entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded, requiring staff to know the date of first use to calculate an appropriate discard date. The facility’s written Medication Storage policy stated that all medications housed on the premises would be stored according to manufacturer recommendations, including appropriate conditions and security, but the undated opened insulin pen and PPD vials showed this was not followed. No specific residents, their medical histories, or conditions at the time of the deficiency were described in the report.
Failure to Accurately Document Wound Care and Update Care Plan for Diabetic Foot Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain clear, complete, and accurate documentation in the EMR and to update the care plan for a cognitively intact resident with diabetes mellitus who was admitted on 12/10/2024. A new diabetic foot ulcer on the left lateral mid-foot was identified and documented on 1/13/2026 as an in-house acquired wound that was measured and dressed. A treatment order was entered on the TAR starting 1/14/2026 for a left foot pressure injury to be treated with betadine and white border gauze each morning. Review of the TAR for January and February 2026 showed that nursing staff did not initial the treatment as completed on 11 of 27 days after the treatment was ordered, and there were no nursing progress notes explaining why the treatments were not performed, delayed, or refused, nor any documentation that the medical provider was notified of any interruption or rejection of care. The resident’s care plan was not revised to include the new wound identified on 1/13/2026 until after the survey began on 2/9/2026, indicating that prior to that date the care plan had not been updated to address the wound. Interviews with the UM and DON confirmed that the resident often dictated when and by whom care was provided and that they assumed refusals or delays in treatment, but they acknowledged that the medical record lacked documentation of refusals, delays, completion of treatments, provider notification, or resident education regarding delayed or refused care. Job descriptions for RNs and LPNs provided by the facility required accurate and prompt implementation of physician orders, assessment and documentation of resident condition and nursing needs, and documentation of treatments as required by company policy and applicable regulations, but as of survey exit no additional information was provided to clarify the nursing care or documentation for this resident.
Failure to Notify Physician of New Diabetic Foot Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a medical provider of a new open wound for one resident. The resident was admitted on 12/10/2024 with pertinent diagnoses including diabetes mellitus. On 1/13/2026 at 4:55 PM, an EMR progress note documented that a new diabetic foot ulcer was identified on the left lateral mid-foot, acquired in-house, measured, and dressed. However, this documentation did not indicate that the physician was notified of the new wound or its characteristics, despite the facility’s policy requiring prompt physician consultation when there is a change requiring notification, including conditions with potential to require physician intervention and new treatments. During an interview on 2/9/2026, the Unit Manager acknowledged that the medical record lacked evidence that the medical provider had been notified of the new wound identified on 1/13/2026. The Unit Manager stated that mid-level providers review photographs, but also acknowledged that no medical providers had documented review of any photographs related to this wound. Review of the facility’s Notification of Changes policy and the job descriptions for RNs and LPNs showed expectations to report and record pertinent observations and to notify physicians under specified circumstances. As of survey exit on 2/10/2026, no additional information was provided to demonstrate that the physician had been notified of the new wound.
Failure to Timely Revise Care Plan for New Diabetic Foot Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan and formulate goals and interventions after a resident developed a new open wound. The electronic medical record showed that the resident, admitted on 12/10/2024 with a diagnosis including Diabetes Mellitus, was found on 1/13/2026 at 4:55 PM to have a new in-house acquired diabetic foot ulcer on the left lateral mid-foot, which was measured and dressed. However, review of the resident’s care plan revealed that no nursing care plan addressing this new wound, including goals/benchmarks for care or nursing interventions, was developed until after surveyors initiated the survey on 2/9/2026. In an interview on 2/9/2026 at 3:32 PM, the Unit Manager confirmed that the care plan for the new wound was not initiated until that date.
Kitchen Food Safety and Sink Use Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain best practices in the kitchen, with observations showing that the drain line for the ice machine did not have an air gap and was below the flood rim of the drain. During the kitchen walkthrough, Dietary staff were also observed using the hand sink to fill water pitchers, and the pitchers were then placed in the refrigerator. When interviewed, the Certified Dietary Manager stated that pitchers were supposed to be filled from the prep sink. The report cites these actions and conditions as not being in accordance with professional standards and FDA Food Code requirements for backflow prevention and use of a handwashing sink.
Lack of Active Water Management Plan for Legionella Control
Penalty
Summary
Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program was deficient because the facility did not have an active plan for reducing the risk of legionella and other opportunistic pathogens of premise plumbing (OPPP). During a walkthrough with the Maintenance Director, surveyors observed in the shower room on B Hall water lines coming out of the wall that were not attached to any equipment; the Maintenance Director stated the lines had previously been used for a tub, but the tub had been removed and staff were unaware of the lines being used for other purposes. When asked about a flushing schedule, the Maintenance Director stated there was no set flushing schedule for the facility, and that resident room lines were flushed only when a room had been empty and a resident was going to occupy it, or if there was a positive Legionella sample. In the shower room on D Hall, surveyors observed a curtained-off area plumbed as a shower that was being used to store a lift and two shower chairs, and the Maintenance Director was unaware whether the shower was in use or, if not in use, whether the lines were being flushed. A later review of the undated Operations Maintenance and Control Limits document from the water management plan showed that it indicated there was a flushing schedule for the facility.
Call Lights Left Out of Reach for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of two dependent residents by not ensuring their call lights were within reach. R5 was admitted with diagnoses including difficulty walking and generalized anxiety disorder, and the care plan directed staff to place the resident's call light within reach and encourage use of the call light for assistance. During an observation and interview, R5 was in bed and the call light was under the end of the bed and out of reach; R5 stated the call light was sometimes left out of reach even though the resident was able to use it to request assistance. R20 was admitted with diagnoses including overactive bladder and anxiety, and the care plan also directed staff to place the resident's call light within reach and encourage use of the call light for assistance. During an observation and interview, R20 was in bed and the call light was hanging off the head of the bed behind the headboard and out of reach; R20 stated the resident was normally able to use the call light but could not find it. In interviews, a CNA stated both residents were able to use their call lights to call for assistance.
Failure to Notify Resident Representative of Fall With Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the resident's representative of a fall with injury for 1 resident, R2, who was reviewed for falls. R2 was admitted with diagnoses including dementia and muscle weakness and had two activated medical Power of Attorney representatives. An unwitnessed fall report dated 1/11/2025 at 6:45 PM documented that R2 fell in his room and sustained a superficial cut to his right eye and wrist pain. Nursing staff contacted the on-call nurse and physician, but there was no documentation that the medical POA was contacted at the time of the fall. During a telephone interview, one of R2's POAs stated she did not receive notification from the facility when the fall occurred. Although a later fall follow-up meeting note dated 1/13/2025 stated that the responsible party was notified of the fall with injury, the progress notes did not confirm that the responsible party was contacted the evening of the fall. The DON reviewed the record and reported there was no documentation to verify that R2's responsible party was contacted at the time of the fall with injury, and stated the responsible party should have been notified at that time.
Failure to Implement Fall Care Plan Intervention
Penalty
Summary
Facility failed to implement a care planned fall intervention for a resident admitted with dementia and muscle weakness. The resident’s current fall risk care plan, initiated on 8/25/2023, included an intervention to have grip strips in front of the toilet in the bathroom. During an observation on 7/30/2025 at 3:29 PM, there were no grip strips in front of the toilet in the resident’s bathroom. In an interview on 7/31/2025 at 10:26 AM, the DON stated she was not aware the grip strips were not in the bathroom and reported the floor might have been waxed and the grip strips not replaced afterward.
Incorrect Labeling of Tube Feeding Bag
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to correctly label an ordered tube feeding for Resident #69, a male resident admitted with acute respiratory failure requiring a tracheostomy and tube feed for nutrition and hydration. During observation on 07/29/25 at 1:09 PM, the tube feed bag for the resident was labeled only with 07/28/25 and 1600 (4 PM). During interview on 07/31/25 at 8:20 AM, the Unit Manager/Registered Nurse stated that tube feed bag labeling was expected to include the nurse's initials, the date and time the feed was started, the ordered rate of the feed, the resident's name, and the type of formula used.
Nebulizer Treatments Not Offered and Equipment Not Properly Cleaned
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to offer ordered nebulizer treatments for one resident who had been re-admitted after hospitalization for a bowel obstruction and pneumonia. The resident stated during interview that she had not received any breathing treatments the prior day or so far that day, and that staff had not offered them to her. She reported that she had been receiving treatments every four hours and then stopped, and that the treatments were helpful while she was recovering from pneumonia. She also stated that she had not refused any breathing treatments. Review of the eMAR for July 2025 showed the resident had not received a nebulizer treatment since 6:00 PM on 07/29/25, and documentation entered by nursing stated the resident had refused the treatments. The physician order was for one nebulizer treatment every 6 hours, and the resident had not received the last six available treatments. During observation, the resident's nebulizer mouthpiece and medicine cup were found in a clear plastic bag on the bedside nightstand with moisture visible inside the bag and on the equipment. The resident stated staff had just given her a breathing treatment and had not taken the equipment apart and washed it, but instead placed the whole device in the bag immediately after use. The facility policy for small volume nebulizer cleaning required the cup to be opened and residual medication dumped out, the components rinsed with water, allowed to air dry on a clean absorbent towel, and then stored in a bag and labeled once dry.
Inaccurate Documentation of Controlled Substance Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately document narcotic administration for one resident receiving Norco (hydrocodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg) ordered one tablet every 4 hours as needed for pain. The resident was a female with diagnoses including pneumonia and chronic pain syndrome. Review of the Controlled Substance Record showed a Norco dose documented as given at 10:00 AM, but during the survey the resident stated she had received Norco around 7:30 AM with her morning medications. Further review of the record showed the previous Norco dose had been documented as given at 6:00 AM by the night nurse. During interviews, an RN stated she had given the resident Norco around 7:30 AM but entered 10:00 AM on the Controlled Substance Record to correct the time interval between doses. The same RN also stated that the night nurse had not written a time for the overnight Norco dose, so the night nurse later wrote in 6:00 AM during narcotic reconciliation at shift exchange. The DON stated nurses were expected to document the precise time a medication was given, especially a controlled substance. Another RN stated it was very important to document accurately when narcotics are given because many are administered for pain or anxiety and keeping them on schedule helps ensure the resident gets maximum control of the pain or anxiety provided by the medication.
Inadequate Smoking Supervision and Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate smoking supervision and monitoring for several residents, leading to potential safety hazards. Resident #25, a male with above-knee amputations and dementia, was observed smoking unsupervised in a motorized wheelchair in the driveway, where he discarded cigarette filters on the ground. Similarly, Resident #1, who has polyneuropathy and uses an oxygen tank, was seen smoking alone in the garden area, nodding off and dropping cigarette ash onto woodchips, which posed a fire risk. Both residents did not utilize the designated smoking pavilion and were not accompanied by staff, family, or visitors during their smoking sessions. Resident #27, who is legally blind and has intellectual disabilities, was observed smoking in the pavilion without supervision, and the pavilion lacked essential fire safety equipment such as a fire extinguisher. The facility's policy requires direct supervision for residents with smoking privileges, but this was not adhered to, as evidenced by the unsupervised smoking activities of Residents #25, #1, and #27. Additionally, the facility's Leave of Absence (LOA) logbook did not reflect the residents' smoking activities, indicating a lack of proper documentation and monitoring. Further observations revealed that Resident #26, who has alcohol abuse and neuropathy, was found with a pack of cigarettes in his room, contrary to the facility's policy of securing smoking materials. Resident #13, who has a history of stroke and epilepsy, also exited the facility to smoke without signing out in the LOA logbook. Interviews with staff confirmed that the facility's smoking policies were not consistently followed, as residents were not signing out when leaving to smoke, and their smoking evaluations were inaccurately documented as non-smokers. These lapses in supervision and policy adherence contributed to the deficiency in ensuring a safe environment for residents who smoke.
Inadequate Infection Control Practices in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement and follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP) for several residents, leading to potential cross-contamination and infection spread. Resident #64, who was admitted with a gastric tube, did not have appropriate EBP signage on her door, and staff did not don gowns during high-contact activities. There was no active physician's order or care plan intervention for EBP in her electronic health record, despite facility policy requiring such precautions for residents with indwelling medical devices. Resident #217, diagnosed with C-diff, was not properly managed under contact isolation precautions. Staff used hand sanitizer instead of washing hands with soap and water after providing care, contrary to the facility's policy for C-diff cases. Although signage was eventually placed on the resident's door, it was not initially present, and staff were not adequately informed about the correct hand hygiene practices. Resident #21, who tested positive for COVID-19 and was suspected of having C-diff, was not placed in contact isolation as required. The signage on his door did not reflect the need for contact precautions, and staff were unaware of the additional isolation requirements. Furthermore, Resident #36, who shared a bathroom with Resident #21, was exposed to potential C-diff contamination due to improper infection control practices, such as using a shared bathroom sink for medical procedures without appropriate precautions.
Failure to Properly Administer Tube Feeding
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly assess, monitor, and care for a resident receiving tube feedings, as observed in the case of a male resident with diagnoses of adult failure to thrive and dysphagia. The resident was admitted with an order for enteral feeding, which required checking tube placement before administering medications and feedings. However, during an observation, a registered nurse administered medication through the resident's feeding tube without assessing gastric residual or tube placement. The nurse used a syringe to push the medication into the tube rather than allowing it to flow by gravity, contrary to the facility's policy and professional standards of care. Interviews with several registered nurses and the Director of Nursing revealed inconsistencies in the understanding and implementation of the facility's procedures for tube feeding. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the facility's policy did not clearly outline the procedure for assessing tube placement, and the Corporate Nurse mentioned that the policy was under review to align with updated standards of practice. The facility's policy and nursing guidelines emphasize the importance of verifying tube placement and using gravity for medication administration, but these were not followed in the observed incident.
Failure to Administer Vaccinations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer the pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations to a resident, resulting in the potential for the spread of preventable diseases. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including dementia and peripheral vascular disease, had a severely impaired cognitive status as indicated by a BIMS score of 1 out of 15. Despite the resident's Power of Attorney (POA) consenting to the vaccinations, there was no documentation found that the vaccines were administered or refused. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the lack of documentation for the administration or refusal of the vaccines. The facility's policy stated that it aimed to minimize the risk of influenza and pneumococcal disease by offering vaccinations to residents, staff, and volunteers. However, the resident's medication administration record showed that the influenza vaccine was ordered and scheduled but not given, as indicated by blank boxes on the record. This oversight highlights a failure in the facility's vaccination administration process.
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 52 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 Mt. Pleasant
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isabella County Medical Care Facility | 1.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 8 | 0 |
| The Laurels Of Mt. Pleasant | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Medilodge Of Clare | 15 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Riverside Healthcare Center | 15.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Michigan Masonic Home | 15.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 17 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Medilodge Of Mt. Pleasant.
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.