Below 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 Little Sisters Of The Poor during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Incomplete discharge documentation and missing OOLTC notification: A resident was discharged to assisted living, but the chart lacked a discharge order, a complete discharge summary, a recapitulation of the stay, a final status summary, and medication reconciliation. Staff also could not confirm who updated the OOLTC on transfers and discharges, and the DON stated the discharge summary could not be found.
Failure to provide documented nail care and weekly skin checks for a resident dependent on staff for hygiene. The resident had moderate cognitive impairment, dementia, and other chronic conditions, and was supposed to receive assistance with personal hygiene and showers on scheduled shower days. During observation, the resident was not wearing shoes or socks and had long, yellowish toenails, and the EMR lacked documentation of a skin assessment or nail care. The DON confirmed the missing documentation and stated staff were expected to check skin and nails weekly on shower days.
A resident with chronic pain, Parkinson's disease, respiratory failure, and almost constant pain had orders for a fentanyl patch with required two-nurse removal and destruction documentation. MAR review showed multiple instances where the same staff initials were used for both witnesses or where only one nurse documented the process, despite the facility policy requiring two staff to witness disposal of used fentanyl patches. The RN, DON, and consultant pharmacist all confirmed the expected two-person process and noted the documentation breakdown.
The facility failed to ensure proper food storage and labeling, impacting all 32 residents. Observations revealed unlabeled and undated lunchmeat, expired milk, and uncovered ice cream in the main kitchen. Additionally, expired thicken-it juice was found in the 3rd floor kitchenette. Staff acknowledged the need for improvements, as the facility policy was not followed.
A facility failed to administer oxygen according to physician's orders for a resident with pulmonary fibrosis, leading to a deficiency in respiratory care. The resident's oxygen saturation levels were not consistently documented, and staff did not always administer oxygen when needed. Observations and interviews revealed inconsistencies in oxygen use and documentation, despite the resident's expressed need for oxygen.
A resident with vascular dementia and severe communication difficulties was not provided with individualized dementia care at the facility. Despite being dependent on staff for daily activities and exhibiting agitation, the facility failed to document and address the resident's behaviors, which were crucial for evaluating the necessity of psychotropic medications. Staff deviated from the care plan by using an EZ stand lift instead of a Hoyer lift, and the lack of consistent documentation hindered the identification of behavior patterns and triggers.
The facility failed to act on pharmacist recommendations for two residents regarding unnecessary medications. One resident continued using a topical antifungal without re-evaluation, and another did not receive a recommended dose reduction for an antidepressant. The DON acknowledged delays in addressing these recommendations.
A facility failed to ensure a resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs, specifically a topical antibiotic. The resident, with a history of diabetes and hidradenitis suppurativa, was prescribed clindamycin lotion without an end date, and it was unclear if she was still using it. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and tracking of the resident's antibiotic use, with the facility's policy on antibiotic stewardship not being followed.
A resident with diabetes experienced multiple low blood glucose (BG) levels, but the facility failed to notify the physician as required by standing orders. Despite interventions, the resident's BG remained below 70 mg/dl, and symptoms of hypoglycemia were noted. Interviews confirmed the oversight, and the facility's standing orders were not followed, leading to the deficiency.
The facility failed to assess and implement interventions for two residents with wandering and exit-seeking behaviors, leading to one resident eloping and being found on a city street. Despite documented behaviors, care plans were not updated timely, and staff lacked awareness of elopement risks. Interviews revealed a lack of formal assessment processes and communication among staff.
The facility's governing body failed to establish and implement essential policies for management and operation, and did not ensure the administrator's accountability. Key policies were missing or created post-survey, and the administrator's dual role as president of the governing body led to conflicts of interest. Interviews revealed informal oversight and a lack of formal accountability mechanisms.
The facility's assessment was incomplete, lacking evaluations of resident needs based on acuity, specific staffing levels for shifts, and competencies for personnel. It also failed to include job descriptions for contracted staff and volunteers, a recruitment and retention plan, and specific contracted services. Key personnel were either unaware or uninvolved in the assessment's creation, and the assessment was not up to date.
The facility failed to submit accurate staffing data to CMS for Q3, with discrepancies in reported hours for contracted staff. Interviews revealed a lack of process to distinguish direct care from spiritual care hours, and the facility lacked job descriptions for contracted staff. This affected the accuracy of staffing information for all 36 residents.
The facility failed to maintain an effective training program for staff, contracted staff, and volunteers, affecting 36 residents. Annual performance evaluations were incomplete for four nursing assistants, and two did not complete required in-service training. The DON and HR manager acknowledged the absence of a staff development role and a standardized training plan, leading to systemic issues in confirming staff education and training completion.
The facility failed to ensure two nursing assistants completed the required 12 hours of annual in-service training, including abuse and dementia training. NA-F and NA-G lacked documentation of completed training, confirmed by the DON and HR manager. The facility's assessment required staff to be trained with necessary skills, but the job description did not specify abuse or dementia training, potentially affecting all 36 residents.
The facility failed to conduct annual performance evaluations for four nursing assistants, with significant gaps in evaluations noted in their records. Interviews revealed a lack of awareness among staff about the timing of their last evaluations. The absence of a staff development person contributed to this deficiency, and the facility did not provide policies on performance reviews.
The facility did not have a written transfer agreement with a Medicare or Medicaid-certified hospital, which is essential for ensuring timely hospital transfers for residents in emergencies. The DON confirmed the absence of such an agreement and noted no efforts had been made to establish one. The facility's hospital transfer policy did not address this requirement.
Incomplete discharge documentation and missing OOLTC notification
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure all required discharge documentation was completed and provided for a resident who was discharged to an assisted living location in another state. The resident’s quarterly MDS identified intact cognition and independence with dressing, hygiene, and mobility, and the care plan noted the resident wanted to transfer to assisted living when an opening became available. The resident’s order recap lacked a discharge order, and provider visit summaries did not include discharge-related information or orders. On the day of discharge, scheduled morning medications were administered before the resident left, and the progress note stated the resident was discharged with available medications, eye drops, ointments, transfer/discharge record, MAR, order summary, advanced directives, pertinent notes, and labs sent. The discharge documentation reviewed did not include a recapitulation of the resident’s stay, a final summary of status, or reconciliation of pre-discharge and post-discharge medications. The Transfer/Discharge Report and the list of assessments from admission to discharge also lacked evidence that these elements were completed, and there was no notation that the OOLTC was updated on the discharge. During interviews, RN and LPN staff stated a doctor’s order and a discharge summary assessment were needed for discharge, and the DON stated the discharge summary could not be found and that the discharge process needed work to meet regulations. The administrator stated he was unsure who updated the OOLTC on transfers and discharges, and the last transmittal in the social services binder appeared to be from 2023; the OOLTC later reported the last transfer and discharge notice received from the facility was on 12/18/24.
Failure to Provide Documented Nail Care and Weekly Skin Checks
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure routine personal hygiene care, specifically nail care, was provided for one resident who was dependent on staff for care. The resident had a quarterly MDS indicating moderate cognitive impairment, no behaviors, and no refusal of personal care, and her medical diagnoses included congestive heart disease, cerebral infarction without residual deficits, dementia, back pain, and hypertension. Her care plan indicated she was independent with dressing but needed limited assistance from one staff member with personal and toileting hygiene, and it directed staff to assist with dressing and applying shoes. Her Kardex indicated showers were provided on Monday mornings. During observation, the resident was sitting up watching television and was not wearing shoes or socks. Her toenails were yellowish and about 1 centimeter long from the end of the toe. The EMR showed a skin assessment on 10/20/25 and a comprehensive skin assessment on 1/24/25, but there was no progress note documenting a shower, skin assessment, or nail care on 1/26/26. The NA stated the resident had a shower the day before, and the DON reviewed the record and verified there was no documentation of a skin assessment and/or nail care being performed that day. The DON stated nursing assistants should cut residents' nails unless they are diabetic, expected staff to check residents' skin and nails every week on shower days, and confirmed the resident's toenails were long and needed trimming.
Failure to document two-person fentanyl patch destruction
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that fentanyl patch destruction was completed according to its established policy requiring two nurses, or a nurse and another professional, to witness disposal of used and unused patches. For one resident with Parkinson's disease, respiratory failure, chronic pain, and almost constant pain, the record showed orders for a fentanyl transdermal patch every 72 hours and documentation of removal and destruction by two licensed staff nurses. Review of the resident's MARs for November 2025, December 2025, and January 2026 showed multiple entries where the same staff initials were documented for both nurse #1 and nurse #2 on the same dates, and several dates had a nurse #1 entry without a corresponding nurse #2 entry. The monthly pharmacy consultation report identified that 4 of 8 fentanyl removal/destruction entries had the same staff signature and was acknowledged by the facility with a handwritten note to watch and a signature. During interview, an RN stated the process was for two nurses to witness destruction of the patch and sign separately, but one nurse had apparently forgotten to log it in the chart. The DON stated two different staff nurses were required to complete the documentation and that the process should have been monitored more closely. The consultant pharmacist stated there should have been two different nurses witnessing and signing off the destruction of the fentanyl patches and that the breakdown had been identified in the November 2025 MRR.
Deficiency in Food Storage and Labeling Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper food storage and labeling practices, which had the potential to impact all 32 residents. During an observation of the main kitchen, it was found that an open package of Hillshire Farm sliced turkey lunchmeat was wrapped in saran wrap without a label or date. Additionally, four half gallons of milk were found in the walk-in dairy refrigerator with expired best-by dates. The Dietary Aide and Dietary Director both verified the expired milk and acknowledged the oversight. Furthermore, a tray of vanilla ice cream in the upright freezer was not covered or dated and appeared to be freezer burnt. Cook-A confirmed the lack of labeling on the lunchmeat and the ice cream, stating that they should have been covered and dated. On a separate observation, the 3rd floor kitchenette contained an unopened container of Hormel thicken-it juice with an expired use-by date. Dietary Aide-B verified the expired juice and removed it, noting that dietary staff reviewed items weekly to ensure none were expired, but the juice had been missed. The Dietary Director acknowledged the need for improvements in food storage and stated that with a lower census, items were not being used as frequently. The Administrator also expected expired items to be discarded and all opened items to be covered and labeled. The facility policy directed staff to properly cover, label, and date food items, but this was not adhered to in these instances.
Failure to Administer Oxygen Per Physician's Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that oxygen was administered according to physician's orders for a resident with pulmonary fibrosis, leading to a deficiency in respiratory care. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment and used oxygen, had physician's orders for oxygen administration to maintain oxygen saturation levels above 91%. However, the medication administration record (MAR) and treatment administration record (TAR) lacked documentation of the resident's oxygen saturation levels and did not consistently record the use of oxygen. Observations and interviews revealed that the resident's oxygen was not always turned on when needed, and staff did not consistently document or administer oxygen as per the physician's orders. The resident's oxygen saturation levels varied, with some instances showing levels below the required threshold without oxygen being administered. Despite the resident expressing a need for oxygen, staff did not always respond appropriately, and there was a lack of documentation in the care plan and care guide regarding the resident's oxygen use. Interviews with staff, including a nursing assistant and a licensed practical nurse, indicated inconsistencies in oxygen administration and documentation. The director of nursing expected staff to monitor oxygen saturations as needed, but the facility's policy on respiratory care was not followed, resulting in the deficiency.
Failure to Implement Individualized Dementia Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comprehensively assess and implement individualized person-centered dementia care for a resident diagnosed with vascular dementia and other complex medical conditions. The resident, who had severe difficulty communicating due to expressive aphasia and progressive dementia, was dependent on staff for various activities of daily living and exhibited behaviors such as agitation and vocalizations. Despite these challenges, the facility did not adequately document or address the resident's behaviors, which were crucial for evaluating the necessity of psychotropic medications like Seroquel. The resident's care plan and physician orders indicated the use of a Hoyer lift for transfers, but staff frequently used an EZ stand lift due to the resident's combative behavior during care. This deviation from the care plan was not properly documented or communicated, leading to inconsistencies in care delivery. Staff interviews revealed that the resident was often combative during personal care activities, such as toileting and bathing, and that these behaviors were not consistently documented, which hindered the ability to identify patterns or triggers for the resident's agitation. The facility's failure to document and address the resident's behaviors was further compounded by a lack of communication between nursing assistants and nurses. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the issue with behavior documentation, emphasizing the importance of identifying patterns and root causes to develop effective interventions. The facility's behavior management policy required vigilant observation and documentation of behaviors, but this was not adhered to, resulting in a deficiency in providing appropriate dementia care for the resident.
Failure to Act on Pharmacist Recommendations for Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely action on consultant pharmacist recommendations for two residents regarding unnecessary medications. For one resident, who had a history of non-traumatic brain dysfunction, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, aphasia, and non-Alzheimer's dementia, the pharmacist recommended re-evaluating the prolonged use of a topical antifungal, nystatin powder, due to the risk of adverse consequences. Despite this recommendation, there was no documented physician response or signature to indicate that the medication was addressed, and the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that previous recommendations were not followed up on. Another resident, diagnosed with major depressive disorder and receiving duloxetine, had a pharmacy consultation report recommending a gradual dose reduction (GDR) due to federal regulations. However, there was no documented physician response or signature to indicate that the medication was addressed. The pharmacist consultant noted a delay in following up on recommendations, and the DON admitted that pharmacy recommendations were not being followed up on prior to November, without knowing the reason for the oversight.
Failure to Monitor and Track Topical Antibiotic Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs, specifically a topical antibiotic. The resident, who was cognitively intact and had a history of diabetes and hidradenitis suppurativa, was prescribed clindamycin lotion for a year. However, the order for the clindamycin lotion had no end date, and it was unclear if the resident was still using the medication as she was able to self-administer and store medications unsupervised. The resident's care plan did not indicate that she was prescribed an antibiotic, and there was no documentation of monitoring or evaluation of the effectiveness of the antibiotic. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and tracking of the resident's use of the topical antibiotic. The registered nurse was not aware of the resident's use of clindamycin and noted that there was no end date on the order. The infection preventionist confirmed that the antibiotic was not included in the facility's tracking, which only covered oral antibiotics. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the oversight and stated that all antibiotics should be tracked. The facility's policy required a duration for antibiotic orders and monitoring of their effectiveness, which was not followed in this case.
Failure to Notify Physician of Abnormal Blood Glucose Levels
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely physician notification of an abnormal lab result for a resident with diabetes. The resident, who had intact cognition and was receiving insulin injections, experienced multiple instances of low blood glucose (BG) levels on a specific day. Despite standing orders requiring physician notification if BG levels were less than 70 after two treatment attempts, the physician was not notified when the resident's BG levels fell below this threshold multiple times. The resident's blood glucose levels were recorded as low as 52 mg/dl, and despite interventions such as administering orange juice and glucose tablets, the levels remained below 70 mg/dl on several occasions. The nursing progress notes indicated that the resident experienced symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as shakiness and dizziness, and admitted to not eating a snack the previous evening. However, there was no documentation indicating that the physician was notified of these low BG levels, as required by the facility's standing orders. Interviews with the LPN and the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the physician should have been notified according to the standing orders. The LPN acknowledged the oversight, and the DON emphasized the importance of notifying the physician to address potential changes in the resident's condition. The facility's medical director later clarified the blood glucose orders, but at the time of the incident, the standing orders were not followed, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Address Wandering and Elopement Risks
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately assess and implement individualized interventions for residents with wandering and exit-seeking behaviors, leading to a serious incident involving two residents. Resident 1, who had severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering, was not comprehensively assessed for elopement risk. Despite multiple documented instances of wandering and exit-seeking behaviors, the facility did not update Resident 1's care plan in a timely manner to address these behaviors. This lack of assessment and intervention resulted in Resident 1 eloping from the facility and being found on a city street by a passerby. Resident 2, also with severe cognitive impairment and a history of dementia, exhibited exit-seeking behaviors but was not comprehensively assessed for elopement risk. The facility failed to implement immediate interventions following Resident 2's exit-seeking incident, and the care plan was not updated until several days later. The facility's inaction in assessing and addressing Resident 2's wandering behaviors contributed to the deficiency. Interviews with facility staff, including the DON and various nursing assistants, revealed a lack of awareness and understanding of the residents' elopement risks and the necessary interventions. Staff members were not consistently informed about residents' behaviors, and there was no formal process for assessing elopement risk. The facility's failure to conduct comprehensive assessments and implement appropriate interventions for residents with wandering and exit-seeking behaviors led to the deficiency identified by surveyors.
Removal Plan
- Comprehensively assessed all residents for elopement risk
- Assessed level of supervision needed
- Implemented appropriate interventions
- Evaluated efficacy of current interventions
- Updated care plans accordingly
- Reviewed and revised elopement policies and procedures
- Identified residents at high risk
Lack of Governing Body Policies and Administrator Accountability
Penalty
Summary
The facility's governing body failed to establish and implement necessary policies for the management and operation of the facility, as well as ensuring the administrator's accountability to the governing body. During the survey, the facility was unable to provide several requested policies, including those related to physician visits, emergency care, and staff licensure verification. Policies that were eventually provided were dated after the survey began, indicating they were not in place prior to the survey. The facility's assessment claimed that policies were reviewed annually, but the lack of documentation contradicted this claim. Interviews with facility staff, including the stand-in for the chief executive officer (SCEO), the director of nursing (DON), and the administrator, revealed a lack of awareness and documentation of essential policies. The SCEO admitted that while physician visits were conducted according to regulations, there was no formal policy in place. The administrator acknowledged that the governing body had not discussed or followed recommendations for policy establishment and implementation. The facility's organizational structure further complicated accountability, as the administrator also served as the president of the governing body, creating a conflict of interest. The governing body consisted of the administrator, an assistant to the administrator, and a contracted registered nurse, with the administrator also holding the role of Mother Superior. This dual role led to confusion about accountability and reporting structures, as the administrator was expected to report to herself in her capacity as Mother Superior. Interviews with other governing body members confirmed the lack of formal oversight and accountability mechanisms, as meetings were informal and updates were provided verbally. The facility was in the process of hiring a non-clergy administrator to separate these functions, but at the time of the survey, the deficiency remained unaddressed.
Incomplete Facility Assessment and Staffing Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Facility Assessment (FA) was comprehensive and included necessary evaluations and plans. The assessment did not evaluate the resident population's needs based on acuity using evidence-based data-driven methods, and it lacked specific staffing levels required for different shifts. Additionally, the FA did not include competencies and skill sets for all personnel necessary to provide appropriate care, nor did it identify job descriptions for contracted registered nurses, unit supervisors, or volunteers. The assessment also lacked a plan for maximizing recruitment and retention of direct care staff and did not identify specific contracted services required to meet resident needs. Interviews revealed that key personnel, including the Director of Nursing (DON) and the new acting Administrator, were either unaware of the FA or uninvolved in its creation. The regional consultant was unaware of a facility policy for volunteers, and the stand-in chief executive officer (SCEO) and contracted registered nurse (CRN-A) acknowledged that the FA was not up to date. The SCEO indicated that updates were made to include project and quality meeting dates, but other parts of the assessment were not updated due to a lack of responsibility. The DON emphasized the importance of having knowledgeable staff and appropriate policies for education, training, and competency, which were not reflected in the current FA.
Inaccurate Staffing Data Submission to CMS
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the third quarter. The Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report for this period showed discrepancies in the reported hours for contracted staff, specifically for a contracted nursing assistant (CNA-A) and two certified registered nurses (CRN-A and CRN-B). The reported hours in the PBJ did not match the hours documented on the facility's contracted service time sheets, leading to inconsistencies in the data submitted to CMS. Interviews with the facility's payroll administrator and contracted staff revealed a lack of clarity and process in distinguishing between direct care hours and spiritual care hours. The payroll administrator was unaware of any process to separate these hours, and the contracted staff, including CNA-A and CRN-A, reported working on an as-needed basis without a clear method to track their direct care hours. This lack of documentation and tracking contributed to the discrepancies in the reported hours. Additionally, the facility did not have job descriptions or contract information for the contracted staff, which further complicated the accurate reporting of staffing hours. The human resource manager confirmed the absence of job descriptions for the unit supervisors, and the facility's policy on PBJ reporting was not updated to reflect the primary roles and job titles of the staff involved. This oversight in documentation and reporting processes had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility.
Deficiency in Staff Training Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff, contracted staff, and volunteers, which had the potential to affect all 36 residents receiving care. The deficiency was identified through interviews and document reviews, revealing that the facility did not complete annual performance evaluations for four out of five nursing assistants who had been employed for over a year. Additionally, two out of five nursing assistants did not complete the required 12 hours of annual in-service training, and one nursing assistant lacked abuse or dementia training. The facility's assessment did not specify training or competencies based on the resident population, and the requested training program and orientation plan were not provided. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the administrator highlighted concerns about staff education and the absence of a staff development person to track required education. The DON admitted to not having an ongoing training plan for nurses beyond orientation and competency checklists, and there was no standardized training plan in place. The human resources manager confirmed the lack of a process for ensuring staff completed necessary training. The facility's assessment referenced a Training and Orientation Plan, but neither the DON nor the human resources manager was familiar with its contents, indicating a systemic issue in confirming staff education and training completion.
Deficiency in Nursing Assistant Training
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two of the five nursing assistants reviewed for annual training completed the required 12 hours of in-service training. Specifically, NA-F was unaware of the number of training hours completed and did not have documentation of 12 hours of training in their employee file. NA-G reported completing online training through Relias and signing off on letters composed by the DON, but also did not have documentation of 12 hours of training or the required abuse and dementia training in their file. The DON and HR manager confirmed the lack of documentation for both NA-F and NA-G. The facility's assessment indicated that staff were expected to be trained with the necessary skills to care for residents, and that education and credentials were to be verified before hiring and checked annually. However, the job description for certified nursing assistants did not specify the requirement for abuse or dementia training. This oversight had the potential to affect all 36 residents in the facility, as one of the nursing assistants had not received any abuse or dementia training.
Failure to Conduct Annual Performance Evaluations for Nursing Assistants
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations for four out of five nursing assistants who had been employed for over a year. Specifically, the personnel records for NA-D, NA-E, NA-F, and NA-G showed significant gaps in performance evaluations. NA-D, hired in 2007, had their last evaluation in 2020, with another one in 2016. NA-E, hired in 2005, had their last evaluation in 2021. NA-F, hired in 2020, had no performance review on record. NA-G, hired in 2015, had their last evaluation in 2020. Interviews with the nursing assistants revealed a lack of awareness about the timing of their last evaluations, with some believing they had been completed more recently than the records indicated. The human resources manager and the director of nursing confirmed the absence of annual performance reviews in the employee files. The director of nursing noted that the facility lacked a staff development person responsible for managing these tasks, which should have been completed yearly and submitted to human resources. Despite requests, the facility did not provide policies regarding performance reviews, indicating a systemic issue in maintaining up-to-date evaluations for nursing assistants.
Lack of Written Hospital Transfer Agreement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a written transfer agreement with a hospital certified by Medicare or Medicaid, which is necessary to ensure the timely transfer and admission of residents requiring emergency hospitalization. This deficiency was identified during a review of the facility's policies and procedures, where no such agreement was found. During an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the absence of a written transfer agreement and acknowledged that no good faith effort had been made to establish one with a hospital. The facility's policy on hospital transfers, dated November 10, did not address the requirement for a transfer agreement with a hospital.
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 1,052 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 34 immediate-jeopardy cases — 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 Saint Paul
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ebenezer Integrated Care & Rehab | 0.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| The Emeralds At St Paul Llc | 0.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| The Villas At St Paul | 1 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Capitol View Transitional Care Center | 1.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Cerenity Care Center On Humboldt | 1.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Little Sisters Of The Poor.
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.