Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around April 2027
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 Mission Nursing Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with schizophrenia, diabetes, and epilepsy was transferred to the hospital for seizure activity, and the facility notified the provider and family. However, the medical record lacked evidence that the State LTC Ombudsman was notified of the transfer, and the ADON stated there was no way to verify whether nurses had sent the bed hold notification.
Failure to Follow CHF Weight-Based Lasix Orders: A resident with CHF had ordered daily weights and PRN Lasix for rapid weight gain, but staff did not notify the provider or administer the PRN diuretic when the resident’s weight increased significantly on two separate occasions. Records also showed a missed daily weight, and the resident was later hospitalized with acute-on-chronic systolic HF after reporting chest and arm pain. Interviews confirmed the RN, LPN, ADON, PCP, and DON all recognized the orders were not followed.
Two residents with indwelling urinary catheters and EBP signs in their rooms were cared for without the required gown use during catheter drainage bag emptying and brief care. Staff drained urine while wearing gloves only, handled the drainage bags and urinals, and one staff member did not wipe the catheter spout with an alcohol wipe before returning it to the holder. The IP stated gowns and gloves were required for catheter care, the bag should stay below bladder level, and the spout should be cleaned with an alcohol wipe.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and a history of falls was admitted on hospice, but the facility failed to integrate the hospice plan of care into the resident’s comprehensive care plan. The hospice coordination note identified pain management goals and visit frequencies, yet these were not reflected in the facility’s ADL or nursing care plans, and the hospice plan of care was not available in the record. A NA knew the resident was on hospice but was unaware of hospice-specific interventions such as pain monitoring frequency or comfort-focused ADL assistance. An RN confirmed the absence of hospice-specific goals and interventions in the care plan, and a hospice RN acknowledged she had not provided the comprehensive hospice plan of care to the facility. The DON stated the facility relied on hospice to manage the plan of care and could not confirm that hospice-related interventions for pain, anxiety, dyspnea, and psychosocial support were included, despite a policy requiring comprehensive care plans for all residents.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, hemiplegia, aphasia, dysphagia, and end-of-life cancer was care planned as a vulnerable adult requiring a calm, consistent approach, monitoring for emotional status, and protection from abuse. Video evidence showed a CNA removing a clean incontinent pad the resident kept under his pillow, throwing it on the floor, pushing the bed toward the wall, striking the resident’s hand with the call light, and repositioning the bed and remote out of his easy reach while he softly protested. The CNA then repeatedly gave the resident the middle finger, mocked him with facial expressions and grunting sounds, threw a bedspread over him, and left him in a lowered bed struggling to reach the remote, during which he cried and appeared visibly upset. Family interviews confirmed the resident became tearful, felt frustrated and defeated, and later more distrustful and withdrawn, while the facility’s written abuse prevention policy expressly prohibited such maltreatment.
The facility failed to complete and document ordered weekly head-to-toe skin assessments for three high-risk residents with existing PUs and multiple risk factors such as immobility, incontinence, diabetes, PVD, malnutrition, and chemotherapy. Provider orders and care plans required weekly skin checks, but electronic records showed missed weeks for each resident, with no documentation that assessments were done or refused. Nursing staff, including an LPN, RNs, and the DON, confirmed that admission body audits and wound rounds did not replace weekly skin assessments and acknowledged that the required weekly assessments were not consistently performed or recorded.
The facility failed to verify that multiple nurse aides and trained medication aides held active status on the state registry before allowing them to perform nursing and nursing-related services. Review of personnel files showed that four nursing assistants had inactive registry status with no evidence of renewal, yet they reported providing resident care such as toileting, transfers, peri care, and medication administration under RN/LPN supervision. Interviews confirmed that these staff had been working in NA/TMA roles without current certification, and the facility could not produce documentation of active NA or TMA credentials, despite written job descriptions requiring completion of approved training and good standing with the state registry.
A deficiency was cited for not ensuring a resident's right to dignity, self-determination, communication, and the exercise of their rights. The report does not specify the exact circumstances or individuals involved.
A resident experienced a significant medication error due to a failure in the medication administration process. The report does not provide further details about the circumstances or the resident's condition at the time.
The facility did not have an infection prevention and control program in place, as observed by surveyors. This lack of a systematic approach to infection prevention was identified during the survey process.
A resident with chronic pain and a history of stroke did not receive prescribed pain medications prior to a scheduled surgery due to staff failing to reorder hydrocodone-acetaminophen in a timely manner. The resident left for surgery without pain management, arriving at the surgery center in severe pain. Staff did not follow protocols for medication reordering or documentation, leading to actual harm.
A resident with left-sided hemiplegia and substantial care needs was found unable to access the call light, which staff had left wrapped around a bed grab bar out of reach. The resident reported having to use a personal phone to contact family for help or self-propel to the nurses' station, as he could not reach the call light due to his physical limitations. Staff and DON confirmed the expectation that call lights be accessible, but this was not consistently followed.
A resident assessed as needing a smoking apron for safety was not consistently provided this adaptive equipment while smoking, despite facility policy and interdisciplinary team determination. Staff responsible for assisting with adaptive equipment did not always implement the required intervention, resulting in the resident smoking without the prescribed safety measures.
The facility did not develop a QAPI plan with measurable goals or a feedback system from residents and their representatives. The DON could not provide documentation outlining specific goals or evaluation methods. Meeting minutes lacked evidence of target goals and resident feedback, despite the QAPI policy requiring benchmarks and goals for performance improvement.
The facility failed to complete thorough smoking assessments for residents who wished to smoke, affecting five individuals with various medical conditions. These assessments were either incomplete or not conducted in a timely manner, contrary to facility policy. The Director of Nursing confirmed the deficiencies, highlighting the importance of completing and communicating these assessments to ensure resident safety.
A facility failed to complete a Level II PASSAR for a resident with mental illness prior to admission. The resident had a history of major depressive disorder, anxiety, PTSD, ADHD, and opioid dependency. The preadmission screening indicated the need for a Level II assessment, which was not documented in the medical record. The social services designee confirmed the lack of documentation and its importance for mental health services.
The facility did not submit accurate staffing data to CMS for a quarter, resulting in a 1-star staffing rating. Despite having adequate nursing coverage, the data was inaccurately reported. The payroll manager lost access to the CMS site, and the administrator, who took over, failed to submit the required information. No policy on PBJ entries was available.
The facility's infection control program failed to include symptom tracking and analysis of resident infections, with logs for March and April 2024 lacking critical information and analysis. Following the previous DON's departure, neither the current DON nor the infection preventionist LPN-A analyzed data or trends, contrary to the facility's policy.
The facility failed to implement an effective antibiotic stewardship program, lacking documentation and analysis of antibiotic use among its residents. Infection control logs were inconsistently filled, missing critical information, and there was no clear responsibility for monitoring antibiotic trends after the previous DON left. Despite daily team meetings, there was no structured follow-up on antibiotic efficacy, leading to a gap in oversight.
A resident with hemiplegia and cognitive intactness experienced repeated dignity violations due to improper clothing adjustments after transfers. Despite staff acknowledging the importance of maintaining resident dignity, observations showed the resident's clothing was often disheveled, exposing the stomach and adult incontinent product, causing embarrassment. The facility lacked a policy to ensure dignity, contributing to the deficiency.
A resident reported receiving opened mail, violating their right to privacy. Social services staff admitted to searching mail for contraband with resident consent, but the administrator was unaware and expected searches only with probable cause. The facility's policy guarantees privacy in communication, which was not upheld.
A facility failed to accurately document a resident's advanced directives in the EMR, leading to a discrepancy between the resident's wishes for DNR status and the physician orders indicating full code. The error occurred due to a lack of communication and verification during the admission process, as the HUC entered initial hospital orders without updating them to reflect the resident's signed DNR status. Staff interviews highlighted the need for consistent documentation across all records to ensure appropriate emergency interventions.
A resident's room was observed to be unclean for several days, with debris and what resembled brown ground meat on the floor. Despite expectations for daily cleaning, the room had not been cleaned for five days, and no cleaning policy was provided. The resident's family also reported seeing garbage during visits.
A facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of a resident's hospital transfers, as required by policy. The resident, with complex medical conditions, was hospitalized twice, but no evidence of notification was found. Staff interviews revealed uncertainty about whether the notifications were completed, and the Ombudsman confirmed no notifications were received.
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including heart failure, returned from hospitalization with a new order for a 1500 ml fluid restriction. However, the facility continued to implement the previous 2000 ml restriction. The DON confirmed the discharge orders were not followed, which was crucial to prevent further exacerbations.
A resident developed pressure injuries due to improper use of a mechanical lift sling in a LTC facility. The resident, who required assistance for daily activities, was transferred using a wet sling that was not centered correctly, causing uneven weight distribution and discomfort. Despite the resident's complaints of pain, staff did not address the issue, leading to injuries in the groin, thighs, and buttocks. The facility's procedures for sling use were not followed, contributing to the deficiency.
A resident requiring substantial assistance due to hemiplegia experienced discomfort during transfers due to improper use of a mechanical lift and sling. Observations showed staff failed to perform necessary assessments and follow manufacturer's guidelines, leading to uneven weight distribution and discomfort. Interviews revealed inadequate training and inconsistencies in staff knowledge regarding sling size and use.
A resident with multiple health conditions, including paraplegia and pressure ulcers, did not have their weight monitored monthly as required by their care plan. Despite orders for monthly weighing, significant lapses in recorded weights were noted, with the last documented weight on 4/3/24. The RD highlighted the absence of updated weights, but there was no evidence of physician notification. Interviews revealed that weights were expected to be taken monthly, and any refusals should be documented, but this was not consistently done.
A facility failed to conduct proper post-dialysis assessment and monitoring for a resident with ESRD. The resident's care plan and treatment records lacked necessary orders and documentation for monitoring the AV fistula and post-dialysis condition. Interviews revealed the absence of a dialysis care policy, leading to inconsistent care practices.
A facility failed to document a clinical rationale for extending the use of PRN Ativan beyond 14 days for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including anxiety disorder. Despite recommendations from the consultant pharmacist and CMS regulations requiring re-evaluation and documentation, the physician's order lacked the necessary clinical rationale. The director of nursing and pharmacist confirmed the deficiency, which had been previously addressed in pharmacy reviews.
A resident with multiple health conditions did not receive a pneumococcal vaccine despite consent and a physician's order. The facility failed to follow up on a pharmacy's approval form, and the vaccination was not administered. The DON expected vaccinations upon admission, but no policy was provided.
The facility failed to ensure the confidentiality of a resident's personal and medical records by sharing information with the resident's probation officer and electronic health monitor case manager without authorization. Staff admitted to communicating concerns about the resident's alcohol use and behavior without having a release of information on file.
Failure to Notify LTC Ombudsman of Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the State Ombudsman for Long Term Care was notified when a resident was transferred to the hospital for medical treatment. The resident’s Continuity of Care document listed diagnoses of schizophrenia, diabetes, and epilepsy. A progress note documented that the resident went to the hospital for seizure activity, and the facility notified the provider and family of the hospitalization. However, the medical record lacked evidence that the State Ombudsman for LTC was notified of the transfer. The Bed Hold Policy and Notification of Transfer indicated the resident had been sent to the hospital, but there was no verification that the LTC Ombudsman was notified. During interview, the ADON stated they could not verify whether the LTC Ombudsman had been notified unless nurses documented it in the progress notes, and stated there was no way to verify that bed hold notifications were sent to the LTC Ombudsman. The ADON also stated no one was checking whether nurses were sending the notification, and no facility policy was provided.
Failure to Follow CHF Weight-Based Lasix Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to monitor resident R16 and implement physician-ordered interventions for CHF-related weight gains. R16’s records showed diagnoses including CHF, hypertension, and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. On 4/18/26, R16’s weight increased from 207.4 lbs to 212.2 lbs, a 4.8-lb gain in one day, which met the provider’s order to notify the provider and give Lasix 20 mg PRN. The record lacked evidence that the provider was notified, and the MAR showed the PRN Lasix was not administered. Progress notes around that time documented no respiratory distress early in the day, but later diminished lung sounds in all lobes. R16 was later hospitalized on 4/21/26 after reporting chest pain and left arm pain radiating to the neck. Hospital documentation identified acute-on-chronic systolic heart failure, and discharge orders included an increased furosemide regimen for excess fluid. After the hospitalization, the provider ordered daily weights with notification for a 3-lb gain in a day or 5 lbs in a week, and the PRN Lasix order was later adjusted to 10 mg. On 5/18/26, R16’s weight increased from 210 lbs to 217.8 lbs over two days, with no weight recorded on 5/17/26. The record again lacked evidence that the provider was notified of the missed weight or the weight gain, and the MAR showed Lasix 10 mg PRN was not administered. Interviews confirmed the omissions. RN-A stated she obtained the 5/18/26 weight, did not notify the provider, and was not aware of the PRN Lasix order. LPN-A stated she obtained the 4/18/26 weight, did not notify the provider of the increase, and did not administer the ordered PRN Lasix. The ADON, PCP, and DON all stated the provider should have been notified of the elevated weights and that the PRN Lasix should have been given as ordered. The facility’s medication policy stated medications are to be administered in accordance with prescriber orders and in a safe and timely manner.
PPE and Catheter Drainage Bag Care Not Followed
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate PPE was used for two residents who required enhanced barrier precautions and failed to follow accepted standards for emptying urinary catheter drainage bags. R11’s admission MDS indicated diagnoses of neurogenic bladder and cancer, and that R11 was total assist with toilet hygiene and had an indwelling urinary catheter. During observation, the CDC EBP sign in R11’s room indicated gowns and gloves were to be worn for high-contact care activities, including device care for a urinary catheter. NA-B entered the room wearing gloves but no gown while assisting with catheter drainage bag emptying and brief care. NA-B drained urine from the catheter bag into a urinal, handled the bag and urinal with repeated glove changes, and used a washcloth fresh scent wipe on the catheter bag spout before replacing it in the holder. NA-B later stated she had not worn a gown, and NA-C also did not wear a gown while assisting. R44’s continuity of care document indicated diagnoses of vascular dementia and benign prostatic hyperplasia, and R44 also had an indwelling urinary catheter. In R44’s room, the CDC EBP sign likewise indicated gowns and gloves were required for high-contact care and device care. NA-A was observed emptying the catheter drainage bag while wearing gloves but no gown, holding the drainage bag up to shoulder level while draining urine into a urinal. NA-A then placed the bag on R44’s wheelchair and returned the spout to the holder without wiping it with an alcohol wipe. NA-A stated she had emptied the bag while standing up and had not worn the gown indicated by the EBP sign. The infection preventionist stated staff should wear gowns and gloves when draining urinary catheter drainage bags, keep the bag below bladder level, and clean the spout with an alcohol wipe; the facility procedure also directed staff to keep the collection bag below bladder level and wipe the drain with an alcohol sponge or swab.
Failure to Integrate Hospice Plan of Care Into Resident’s Comprehensive Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident receiving hospice services had a comprehensive written plan of care that incorporated the hospice plan of care and clearly described the services the facility would provide. The resident was discharged from the hospital with diagnoses including repeated falls, Parkinson’s disease with dyskinesia, and dementia, with hospice care as the discharge disposition. A hospice initial coordination note documented goals related to pain management and visit frequencies for nursing and social work, and indicated hospice would deliver the initial hospice plan of care to the facility. However, these hospice goals and interventions were not integrated into the facility’s care plan, and the hospice plan of care was not provided to the surveyor upon request. The resident’s ADL care plan did not include the most recent hospice plan of care and lacked documentation of how the facility would coordinate or provide services to support hospice interventions. Record review for the month showed there was no comprehensive written plan of care that combined the hospice plan with facility services such as nursing interventions, ADL assistance, and pain monitoring. A NA reported knowing the resident was on hospice but not knowing the specifics of hospice care needs, including required pain monitoring frequency or comfort-focused ADL approaches, stating she had not been informed of hospice-specific interventions. An RN confirmed that the resident’s comprehensive care plan should have reflected individualized hospice goals and interventions but acknowledged she could not locate a comprehensive hospice care plan in the record. A hospice RN stated she did not provide the comprehensive hospice plan of care to the facility, focusing instead on medication management, and stated staff should have access to a hospice plan of care identifying needs and interventions. The DON stated the facility relied on hospice to manage their plan of care, was unaware whether the hospice plan had been integrated into the resident’s comprehensive care plan, and could not confirm whether hospice-related interventions such as pain, anxiety, shortness of breath management, and psychosocial support were present. The facility’s comprehensive care plan policy was requested but not provided, while the resident assessment policy required a comprehensive care plan for all admitted residents.
Failure to Protect a Vulnerable Resident From Physical and Verbal Abuse by a Nursing Assistant
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a vulnerable resident from staff-to-resident abuse by a nursing assistant (NA-A). The resident had a history of stroke, cancer with a prognosis of less than six months to live, hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting one side of the body, aphasia, dysphagia, a prior neck of femur fracture, depressed mood, restlessness, and anxiety. The admission MDS documented severe cognitive impairment, no mood or behavioral issues at baseline, and dependence on staff for ADLs, with bladder and bowel incontinence. The care plan identified the resident as a vulnerable adult expected to decline due to end-of-life status, required assistance with incontinent care and transfers, and directed staff to use a calm, consistent approach, monitor for pain and emotional status, avoid overstimulation, and maintain an environment free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. On the date of the incident, video footage showed the resident lying in bed wearing only an incontinent pad and partially covered by a sheet. NA-A removed a clean incontinent pad from under the resident’s pillow and tossed it on the floor, then used her hip to push the bed toward the wall. The resident, in a soft voice, said “no, no, no” while looking at the pad on the floor. NA-A told the resident he already had one on his body and did not need the extra pad. NA-A then grabbed the resident’s call light, moved to the other side of the bed, and when the resident raised his left hand, she hit his hand with the call light and told him to stop before plugging the call light into the wall and stating she was trying to help him. She then lowered the bed to the floor and placed the bed remote on the bedside dresser handle, out of the resident’s immediate reach. The video further showed that as NA-A picked up items from the floor, the resident pointed and faintly said “here, here, here,” indicating the area where the pad had been thrown. Standing at the foot of the bed, NA-A dropped a clear bag on the floor, raised and lowered her right hand, extended her middle finger toward the resident three times, and stuck her tongue out at him. She walked past him mocking him with facial expressions while picking up dirty linen. The resident pointed his finger and said “no, no, no,” after which NA-A left the room and the resident began crying, placed his left hand over his forehead, and appeared visibly upset. He struggled to reach the bed remote on the nightstand handle to raise his bed. When NA-A re-entered, she made grunting sounds mimicking the resident, threw a bedspread over him, lowered the bed back to the floor, placed the bed remote inside the bedside stand, and left the room with the lights on, without addressing or speaking to him. The resident again struggled to reach the remote and remained lying on his side looking at the floor with the bed in the lowered position. Family interviews corroborated the impact of the incident on the resident. One family member reported that she monitored a camera in the resident’s room, noticed his bedding torn apart, and called the facility for assistance, then observed the abusive interaction on the camera. She explained that the resident liked to keep an incontinent pad under his pillow to try to change himself and that he became very upset when NA-A took it away and threw it on the floor. She stated he briefly cried because of how he was treated and his inability to communicate or speak up, and that he felt angry, frustrated, then defeated, and ultimately very upset and tearful when NA-A flipped him off. Another family member stated the incident made the resident more distrustful of staff and withdrawn, and that in the moment it made him cower and cry, and she believed he felt disrespected, helpless, and in physical danger. The facility’s abuse prevention policy stated that maltreatment of residents, including abuse and neglect, would not be tolerated and that all employees were responsible for ensuring residents were free from maltreatment, but the actions of NA-A toward this resident constituted physical and verbal abuse contrary to that policy. The facility’s written Abuse Prevention and Prohibition policy, reviewed in 2022, specified that the facility would not tolerate maltreatment of residents, including abuse and neglect, and that all employees were responsible for assuring residents were free of maltreatment. It also stated that the facility would not knowingly employ individuals who had been convicted of abusing, neglecting, or mistreating individuals, and that reports of maltreatment would be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Despite these written expectations, the documented and observed conduct of NA-A toward this resident—throwing his clean incontinent pad on the floor, hitting his hand with the call light, mocking him with gestures and facial expressions, extending her middle finger at him multiple times, mimicking his vocalizations, and placing the bed and remote out of his reach while he cried and was visibly upset—constituted the abusive actions and inactions that led to the cited deficiency for failure to protect the resident from abuse.
Failure to Complete and Document Ordered Weekly Skin Assessments for High-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to perform and document comprehensive weekly head-to-toe skin assessments as ordered for three residents with existing pressure ulcers and high risk for skin breakdown. For one resident with cancer, deep vein thrombosis, malnutrition, bowel and bladder incontinence, chemotherapy treatment, and mobility limitations requiring a wheelchair, provider orders dated 12/5/25 required weekly head-to-to-toe skin checks on Fridays. This resident had pressure wounds on both ischial tuberosities and later a sacral wound, and the care plan identified multiple risk factors for skin alteration, including a non-healing surgical wound, immobility, nutritional risk, and incontinence. Despite these orders and risk factors, the electronic health record showed only one weekly skin assessment on 12/26/25, with no documented weekly assessments for multiple weeks and no documentation that assessments were completed or refused. A second resident, with intact cognition, peripheral vascular disease, kidney disease, neurogenic bladder, paraplegia, diabetes, and wheelchair dependence, also had provider orders for weekly head-to-toe skin checks on Fridays. This resident had a stage IV sacral pressure ulcer and ongoing pressure wound care orders, indicating high risk for pressure injury. Skin assessments were documented on 1/2/26, 1/9/26, 1/23/26, and 2/6/26, but there was no documentation of weekly skin assessments for the weeks of 1/16/26 and 1/30/26. The progress notes did not show that the missing assessments were completed or that the resident refused them. A third resident, with intact cognition, current pressure ulcers, bowel and bladder incontinence, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, and wheelchair dependence, had provider orders for weekly head-to-toe skin checks on Sundays and ongoing pressure wound care orders for bilateral ischial tuberosity wounds. The care plan identified potential skin alteration and a non-healing open area related to diabetes, PVD, immobility, nutrition risk, incontinence, and impaired cognition. Documented weekly skin assessments occurred on 1/11/26, 1/25/26, 2/1/26, and 2/8/26, but there was no weekly skin assessment documented for the week of 1/18/26, nor any indication in the progress notes that the assessment was completed or refused. Nursing staff, including an LPN, two RNs, and the DON, acknowledged that weekly skin assessments were required by provider orders and facility policy, that admission body audits and wound rounds did not replace weekly head-to-to-toe assessments, and that these residents missed required weekly skin assessments without documented reasons.
Failure to Verify Active NA and TMA Registry Status Before Allowing Nursing Duties
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that nurse aides and trained medication aides had active certification and were in good standing on the state registry before performing nursing or nursing-related services. Document review showed that four of seven reviewed nursing assistants (NA-A, NA-B, NA-C, NA-D) had inactive registry status with no evidence of renewal in their personnel files. NA-A’s certificate, originally issued in 2006, showed inactive status effective 8/24/2025, and there was no documentation of renewal or verification of active NA or TMA status, despite NA-A reporting ongoing work as a nursing assistant and trained medication aide and providing nursing-related care to residents that morning. NA-B’s certificate, dated 1995, showed inactive status effective 4/02/2023, with no renewal documentation in the file, even though NA-B reported working as an NA/TMA since 2003 and was unaware of the inactive status. NA-C’s certificate, dated 1995, showed inactive status effective 8/24/2025, with no evidence of renewal in the personnel file, while NA-C reported obtaining an NA certificate in Boston, moving to Minnesota, and providing nursing-related services such as toileting, transfers, and peri care to residents. NA-D’s certificate, dated 2014, showed inactive status since 8/24/2021, with no renewal documentation, and NA-D stated she did not know if her certificate was active, while acknowledging that nursing staff must have active status to perform nursing-related work. During interview, the administrator stated they could not provide TMA documentation for NA-A, NA-B, and NA-C and acknowledged that staff should not perform nursing-related work with inactive registry status. Facility job description policies for nursing assistants and TMAs, dated 12/21, required completion of approved training and being in good standing with the Minnesota Nursing Assistant Registry, which was not met for these staff members.
Failure to Honor Resident Rights
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified regarding the failure to honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and the exercise of their rights. The report notes that the facility did not ensure these resident rights were upheld, but does not provide specific details about the actions or inactions that led to this deficiency, nor does it mention any particular events or residents involved.
Significant Medication Error Occurred
Penalty
Summary
Residents were not ensured to be free from significant medication errors. The report identifies that there was at least one instance where a resident received a significant medication error, indicating a failure in the medication administration process. Specific details regarding the actions or inactions that led to the error, as well as information about the resident's medical history or condition at the time, are not provided in the report.
Failure to Implement Infection Prevention and Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide and implement an infection prevention and control program. This deficiency was identified during the survey process, as the facility did not have an established or operational program to prevent and control infections among residents and staff. The absence of such a program was directly observed and documented by surveyors, indicating a lack of systematic measures to address infection risks within the facility. No specific residents or staff members were mentioned in relation to the deficiency, and no additional details about individual medical histories or conditions were provided in the report.
Failure to Provide Timely Pain Medication Results in Resident Harm
Penalty
Summary
A resident with chronic pain syndrome, hemiplegia, depression, and anxiety, who was cognitively intact, experienced almost constant pain rated at 8/10. The resident had physician orders for scheduled and PRN doses of acetaminophen and hydrocodone-acetaminophen, including specific instructions to administer these medications prior to a pre-scheduled surgery. Despite these orders, the medications were not administered before the resident left for surgery due to a lack of available supply, and there was no documented rationale for the omission in the resident's record. Staff identified that a new prescription for hydrocodone-acetaminophen was needed two days before the surgery, with only 10 tablets remaining at that time. The medication was not reordered in a timely manner, and the last available dose was given the night before surgery. Although staff contacted the pharmacy and requested a new script, the medication was not delivered before the resident's departure for surgery. The resident left the facility without receiving the ordered pain medications and arrived at the surgery center in severe pain, tearful, and expressing distress over not having received pain management. Documentation and interviews revealed that staff did not follow established protocols for timely medication reordering, did not escalate the issue to the provider or DON when the medication was unavailable, and failed to document the resident's refusal of alternative pain medication. The facility's policy required controlled medications to be reordered when a 5-7 day supply remained, but this was not adhered to, resulting in the resident experiencing actual harm due to unmanaged pain prior to surgery.
Failure to Ensure Call Light Accessibility for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when staff failed to ensure that a resident's call light was within reach and accessible. The resident, who had a history of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke affecting the left side, chronic pain syndrome, depression, and anxiety disorder, required substantial assistance with activities of daily living, including transfers and mobility. During observation, the resident was found sitting in a wheelchair with the call light wrapped around the bed's grab bar on the far side of the room, making it inaccessible. The resident reported having to use a personal cell phone to contact family for help or self-propel to the nurses' station to request assistance, as he could not reach the call light due to his physical limitations. Interviews with nursing staff and the DON confirmed that staff were expected to ensure call lights were within reach for all residents, especially those dependent on staff for care. However, staff had not consistently followed this expectation, as evidenced by the call light being left out of reach. Facility policy also required that residents be provided with a means to call staff for assistance from their bed and other locations, but this was not adhered to in the resident's case.
Failure to Provide Required Smoking Safety Equipment
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to provide required adaptive equipment for a resident assessed as needing a smoking apron for safety while smoking. The resident, who had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and schizophrenia and was cognitively intact, was identified through assessment and interdisciplinary team review as requiring a smoking apron as part of a modified smoking plan. Facility documentation and policy indicated that staff were responsible for ensuring residents used adaptive equipment as identified in their care plans. However, during observation, the resident was allowed to smoke in the designated smoking room without being provided the required apron. The door monitor, responsible for assisting with adaptive equipment, did not provide the apron and stated he believed it was only necessary for outdoor smoking, despite facility documentation indicating otherwise. Interviews with the resident and multiple staff members confirmed inconsistent implementation of the adaptive equipment requirement, with some staff providing the apron and others not. The assistant director of nursing, a registered nurse, and the director of nursing all confirmed that the process involved assessment, interdisciplinary review, and communication of adaptive equipment needs to staff responsible for implementation. Despite these procedures, the resident was not consistently provided the required safety equipment while smoking, as observed and confirmed by staff and the resident.
Lack of Measurable Goals and Feedback System in QAPI Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan that included measurable goals and a system for collecting feedback from residents and their representatives. During the survey, the Director of Nursing (DON) was unable to provide a document outlining specific goals or methods for evaluating the success of quality improvement focuses. Although meeting minutes from the last four quarters were provided, they lacked evidence of target goals for sustainability and did not demonstrate that feedback from residents and their representatives was obtained. The facility's QAPI policy, dated March 2020, stated that it was the committee's duty to establish benchmarks and goals for performance improvement, which was not reflected in the documentation provided.
Incomplete Smoking Assessments for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure thorough smoking assessments were completed for residents who wished to smoke, affecting five residents. These residents were identified as current smokers, yet their smoking assessments were either incomplete or not conducted in a timely manner. For instance, one resident's smoking assessment was marked as in progress with entire sections left blank, and another resident had not been reassessed annually as required. The facility's policy mandates that smoking assessments be completed upon admission, annually, and with any significant change in condition, but these protocols were not followed. The residents involved had various medical conditions, including stroke, brain dysfunction, dementia, and hemiplegia, which could potentially impact their ability to smoke safely. Despite these conditions, the facility did not complete the necessary assessments to determine whether these residents could smoke independently or required supervision. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the assessments were incomplete and emphasized the importance of completing, documenting, and communicating the results to ensure resident safety. Interviews with staff revealed that no single person was responsible for completing the smoking assessments, leading to a lack of accountability. The Director of Nursing stated that the initial smoking assessment should be part of the admission process and completed before allowing residents to smoke independently. However, the assessments were not completed as required, and the interdisciplinary team was not adequately informed of the residents' needs, potentially compromising their safety.
Failure to Complete Level II PASSAR for Resident with Mental Illness
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a Level II Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASSAR) was completed prior to the admission of a resident who required it for mental illness. The resident, identified as cognitively intact, had a history of major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and opioid dependency. The resident's preadmission screening indicated the need for a Level II assessment due to mental illness, which was not documented in the medical record. The social services designee confirmed the absence of the Level II assessment documentation and acknowledged its importance in providing necessary mental health services. The facility policy regarding this process was requested but not provided.
Failure to Submit Accurate Staffing Data 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 first quarter of the year. The Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report for this period showed a 1-star staffing rating and a failure to submit the required data. Despite having a registered nurse on duty for at least 8 hours every 24 hours and a licensed nurse available 24/7, the data submitted to CMS was inaccurate. The payroll manager, who was initially responsible for submitting the PBJ report, lost access to the CMS submission site, leading the administrator to take over the task. However, the administrator acknowledged inadvertently failing to submit the staffing information for the quarter. Additionally, there was no policy related to PBJ entries provided by the end of the survey.
Inadequate Infection Control Program and Data Analysis
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure its infection control program included symptom tracking and ongoing analysis of resident infections to prevent the spread of infections. The infection control logs for March and April 2024 were reviewed and found to lack documentation of analysis or trending of patterns identified. The logs were inconsistently filled out, missing critical information such as the location of infection, type of infection, cultures, and whether isolation was necessary. Additionally, the logs did not document any analysis or tracking of symptoms and infections within the facility. The deficiency was further compounded by a lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities following the departure of the previous Director of Nursing (DON) in late March 2024. The current DON and the infection preventionist LPN-A both confirmed that neither had been analyzing the data and trends with symptom tracking and antibiotic stewardship since the previous DON's exit. The administrator was under the impression that the DON was handling these tasks, but it was confirmed that they were not being completed. The facility's Infection Control-Surveillance Policy, last reviewed in July 2023, indicated that the infection preventionist or designated personnel was responsible for gathering and interpreting surveillance data, which was not being adhered to.
Failure in Antibiotic Stewardship Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a comprehensive antibiotic stewardship program, which is crucial for monitoring the appropriate use of antibiotics among its 58 residents. The infection control logs for March and April 2024 were reviewed and found to be lacking in critical documentation, such as analysis, trending of patterns, and efficacy of antibiotic use. The logs were inconsistently filled out, missing essential information like symptoms, infection location, type, cultures, diagnostics, and antibiotic start dates. Furthermore, there was no documentation of whether the criteria for infections were met or if isolation was necessary. The Quality Assurance meeting minutes provided minimal details on infection control, and there was no evidence of a systematic approach to analyzing antibiotic usage trends. The deficiency was exacerbated by a lack of clear responsibility and follow-through in the antibiotic stewardship process. After the previous Director of Nursing (DON) left in late March 2024, the responsibility for antibiotic stewardship was not clearly assigned. The current DON and the infection preventionist LPN-A both confirmed that they had not been analyzing data or trends related to antibiotic use. Although daily interdisciplinary team meetings were held to discuss new antibiotic orders, there was no structured follow-up to assess the effectiveness of the antibiotics, leaving it to the floor nurses to document any reactions or efficacy in progress notes. The administrator was under the impression that the DON was managing the antibiotic stewardship program, but this was not the case, leading to a gap in oversight and management of antibiotic use in the facility.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the dignity of a resident, identified as R19, who was cognitively intact but required substantial assistance with activities of daily living due to hemiplegia and muscle weakness. Observations revealed that R19 was often seen in public areas with clothing disheveled, exposing parts of the stomach and the edges of an adult incontinent product. The resident expressed discomfort and embarrassment about the situation, stating that it made him feel bad and that people made fun of him. Despite the resident's clear distress, staff did not consistently ensure that his clothing was properly adjusted after transfers, as confirmed by interviews with CNAs and the Director of Nursing (DON). The facility's failure to provide a policy on maintaining resident dignity further highlights the deficiency. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and the DON, indicated an expectation that clothing should be adjusted after transfers to maintain resident dignity. However, this was not consistently practiced, as evidenced by multiple observations of R19 inappropriately dressed in public areas. The resident's care plan and occupational therapy assessment indicated a need for extensive assistance, yet the facility did not adequately address these needs, resulting in repeated exposure and embarrassment for the resident.
Violation of Resident's Right to Privacy in Mail Handling
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received unopened mail, violating their right to privacy in communication. The issue was identified during a resident council meeting where a resident mentioned that social services staff sometimes went through their mail for contraband. The social services staff member responsible for sorting and delivering mail admitted to performing searches of the mail for suspected illicit drugs or alcohol, but claimed it was done with the resident's consent. However, the administrator was unaware of these actions and expected staff to only search mail with probable cause. A specific resident, identified as R55, reported receiving two pieces of mail that had been opened before they received them, including a medical bill and paperwork from their case manager. The director of nursing was also unaware of any policy regarding mail searches and expected searches to be conducted only with suspicion of drugs or alcohol and with the resident's consent. The facility's Resident Rights Policy guarantees residents the right to communicate by mail with privacy, which was not upheld in this instance.
Inaccurate Documentation of Advanced Directives
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's advanced directives were accurately documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) under physician orders. The deficiency involved a resident who had been discharged from the hospital with orders for full code status, which was intended only for the duration of their surgical procedures. However, upon admission to the facility, the resident's EMR banner and paper chart indicated a do not resuscitate (DNR) status, which was consistent with the resident's wishes. Despite this, the physician orders in the EMR incorrectly reflected a full code status, leading to a discrepancy in the documentation. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the error occurred because the health unit coordinator (HUC) entered the initial hospital orders for full code into the system, and the subsequent signed code status form indicating DNR was not communicated to her. The assistant director of nursing (ADON) or a floor nurse was supposed to perform a second check of the orders, but the mismatch between the admission orders and the signed forms was not clarified immediately. The director of nursing (DON) acknowledged the importance of ensuring that the resident's code status was consistent across all parts of the EMR and paper charts to implement appropriate interventions in an emergency situation.
Failure to Maintain Clean Environment for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and safe environment for a resident, identified as R36, who was moderately cognitively impaired with diagnoses including heart failure, hypertension, and hemiparesis. On multiple occasions, surveyors observed a large amount of what resembled brown ground meat and various debris on the floor of R36's room, which remained uncleaned for several days. The resident's family member also reported seeing garbage on the floor during visits on consecutive weeks, indicating a lack of regular cleaning. Interviews with housekeeping staff revealed that rooms were cleaned daily only if all housekeepers were present; otherwise, some rooms were skipped. The director of environmental services and the director of nursing both stated that their expectation was for rooms to be cleaned daily and for any messes to be addressed immediately. However, documentation showed that R36's room had not been cleaned for five days. The facility was unable to provide a policy for room cleaning when requested.
Failure to Notify Ombudsman of Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a written notification of transfer was sent to the Office of the Ombudsman for Long Term Care for a resident who was hospitalized on two separate occasions. The resident, who had multiple complex medical conditions including heart failure, arthritis, and chronic kidney disease, was transferred to the hospital for acute chronic systolic congestive heart failure and later for a fall. Despite the facility's policy requiring the nurse handling the transfer to complete and fax a notification form to the Ombudsman, there was no evidence in the resident's medical record that this was done for either hospital transfer. Interviews with facility staff revealed uncertainty about whether the required notifications were completed. A registered nurse mentioned the usual process of updating the provider, obtaining a transfer order, preparing resident information, and sending a copy of the transfer to the Ombudsman, but was unsure if these steps were followed for the resident in question. The Director of Nursing expected the floor staff to fax the bed hold form to the Ombudsman, but this was not confirmed. An email from the Ombudsman's office confirmed that no notifications were received for the resident's transfers.
Failure to Implement Updated Fluid Restriction Order
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately implement a physician's order for a resident, identified as R44, who was reviewed for hospitalizations. R44 was admitted with a minimum data set indicating a cognitively intact status and had multiple diagnoses, including heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Upon returning from a hospitalization for acute chronic systolic congestive heart failure, R44 had a new physician's order for a 1500 ml fluid restriction. However, the facility continued to implement the previous order of a 2000 ml fluid restriction, as confirmed by a registered nurse (RN) and the director of nursing (DON). The DON stated that the expectation was for discharge orders to be entered and verified by nursing staff upon a resident's return from hospitalization. However, it was assumed that the order for the 1500 ml fluid restriction was missed and not entered appropriately. The DON confirmed that the hospital discharge orders were not followed, which was important to prevent further exacerbations of the resident's condition. The facility's Admission Criteria policy indicated that necessary information for immediate care, including orders for diet and medication, should be provided by the resident's physician prior to admission.
Improper Use of Mechanical Lift Sling Causes Pressure Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent an avoidable pressure injury for a resident, identified as R19, due to improper use of a mechanical lift sling. R19, who was cognitively intact and required substantial assistance for daily activities due to hemiplegia, developed pressure and shearing injuries in the groin, thighs, and buttocks. The care plan for R19 indicated a risk for pressure ulcers and required specific interventions to prevent skin damage, but it lacked details on the appropriate size or color of the sling to be used. During observations, nursing assistants improperly positioned and used a wet sling for transferring R19, which was not centered correctly and caused uneven weight distribution. Despite R19 expressing discomfort and pain during the transfer, the staff did not address these concerns. The improper technique and use of a wet sling led to the development of pressure injuries, as confirmed by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) during a skin inspection. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of knowledge regarding the appropriate sling size for R19, who weighed 298 lbs, and the routine practice of leaving slings under residents. The facility's procedure required staff to be trained and demonstrate competency in using mechanical lifts, including ensuring the correct sling size and checking for resident comfort. However, these procedures were not followed, resulting in harm to R19.
Improper Use of Mechanical Lift and Sling
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to perform mechanical lift and lift sling assessments for a resident, identified as R19, to ensure the appropriate use and proper size of the equipment. R19, who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15/15, required substantial assistance for activities of daily living due to hemiplegia and muscle weakness. The care plan indicated total dependence on a Hoyer lift for transfers but lacked specific details about the size or color of the sling required. Observations revealed that R19's record did not include a comprehensive safe transfer assessment to determine the appropriate sling for use with the mechanical lift. During multiple observations, staff were seen improperly using the mechanical lift and sling with R19. On one occasion, CNAs assisted R19 with changing an incontinent product and clothing, but the sling was left wet and improperly positioned, causing discomfort to R19 during the transfer. On another occasion, staff struggled to properly position the sling under R19, resulting in an uneven distribution of weight and discomfort during the transfer process. The staff's actions demonstrated a lack of understanding and adherence to the manufacturer's guidelines for the mechanical lift. Interviews with various staff members, including CNAs, RNs, and the DON, revealed inconsistencies in training and knowledge regarding the appropriate use of mechanical lifts and slings. Staff were unclear about who was responsible for determining sling size and often left slings under residents unless instructed otherwise. The DON and ADON acknowledged the need for improved training, as staff were not adequately educated on the facility's mechanical lift procedures. The manufacturer's instructions for the EZ Way Smart Lift were not being followed, contributing to the deficiency in safe transfer practices.
Failure to Monitor Resident's Weight as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure ongoing monitoring of weight for a resident, identified as R45, who was at nutritional risk due to multiple health conditions including paraplegia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and pressure ulcers. R45's care plan required monthly weight monitoring, but the electronic medical record showed significant lapses in recorded weights, with the last documented weight being on 4/3/24, despite orders for monthly weighing. The registered dietician (RD) noted the absence of updated weights in several progress notes and recommended obtaining updated weights, but there was no evidence of physician notification regarding the lapse in weight monitoring. Interviews with the RD and the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that weights were expected to be taken monthly, and any refusal by residents should be documented with physician notification. However, R45's weights were not consistently recorded as ordered, and there was no documentation of refusals or physician updates. The facility's policy emphasized the importance of weight monitoring as an indicator of nutritional status and medical condition, but this was not adhered to in R45's case, leading to a deficiency in care.
Failure in Post-Dialysis Monitoring and Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper post-dialysis assessment and monitoring for a resident with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who required dialysis. The resident's physician order report did not include necessary orders to monitor the arteriovenous (AV) fistula for a thrill and bruit daily. Additionally, the treatment administration history lacked documentation for post-dialysis monitoring, such as blood pressure checks, overall condition assessment, and fistula site monitoring. There was also inconsistency in the documentation regarding which arm had the AV fistula, as the care plan indicated the right forearm, while other records suggested the left arm. Interviews revealed that the facility did not have a policy for dialysis care, and the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that post-dialysis assessments were not completed, and daily monitoring of the fistula was not conducted. The dialysis center nurse emphasized the importance of monitoring blood pressure and ensuring the resident was not lightheaded or dizzy post-dialysis. The lack of a formal policy contributed to the absence of standardized care for dialysis residents, leading to the deficiency identified by the surveyors.
Failure to Document Clinical Rationale for Extended PRN Ativan Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a clinical rationale for the extended use of a PRN antianxiety medication, Ativan, beyond 14 days for a resident receiving hospice services. The resident, who had a BIMS score of 11, required substantial to maximum assistance for daily activities and had diagnoses including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dementia, hemiparesis, and anxiety disorder. The physician's order for Ativan, dated 5/1/24, indicated a start date of 3/13/24 and an end date of 9/13/24, but lacked documentation of clinical rationale for extending the use beyond the 14-day limit as required by CMS regulations. The consultant pharmacist had previously recommended that the PRN Ativan order be re-evaluated within 14 days of initiation and that clinical rationale be provided for any extensions. Despite these recommendations, the physician's response on 3/13/24 did not include the necessary clinical rationale. The director of nursing confirmed the expectation that PRN psychotropic medication orders should last only 14 days unless a clinical indication for extension is documented. The pharmacist also confirmed the facility's failure to provide a clinical rationale for the extended order, noting that this issue had been addressed in previous monthly pharmacy reviews.
Failure to Administer Pneumococcal Vaccine
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received a pneumococcal vaccine as offered by the facility. The resident, who was a current smoker and had multiple diagnoses including traumatic subdural hemorrhage, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, and depression, was admitted to the facility with a physician's order indicating they may receive pneumococcal vaccinations if indicated. Despite receiving education and giving consent to receive the vaccine upon admission, the resident's vaccination record lacked evidence of administration. The infection preventionist LPN confirmed the vaccine was not given, and an email from the pharmacy indicated that an approval form for the vaccine was faxed but not responded to by the facility. The Director of Nursing expected staff to administer vaccinations upon admission, but a pneumococcal vaccination policy was not provided when requested.
Breach of Resident Confidentiality
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the confidentiality of a resident's personal and medical records. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including alcoholic gastritis, alcohol-induced acute pancreatitis, and alcohol dependence, was cognitively intact as indicated by a BIMS score of 15. Despite this, the facility shared the resident's medical information with his probation officer and the electronic health monitor case manager without obtaining the resident's authorization. This included details about the resident's alcohol use, behavior, and compliance with his probation conditions. Interviews with facility staff, including the interim director of nursing and the admissions director, confirmed that they had communicated with the resident's probation officer and case manager regarding concerns about the resident's alcohol use and behavior. Both staff members admitted that they did not have a release of information on file to speak with these external parties. The resident also confirmed that he did not give the facility permission to share his information. This breach of confidentiality was documented in various progress notes and email correspondences reviewed during the survey.
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 1,042 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 33 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 Plymouth
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allina Health Restorative Suites | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 1 |
| Good Samaritan Ambassador | 1.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| North Ridge Health And Rehab | 2.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| The Villas At Brookview | 3.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 26 | 1 |
| Woodlake Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center | 3.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 10 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Mission Nursing Home.
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.