Above 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 Truman Senior Living during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Failure to Notify Family of New Bruise: A resident with dementia and total ADL dependence was found with a new bruise on the left temple. Staff noted the injury and documented it as an unknown-origin facial spot, but the resident’s family was not notified when the bruise was discovered. The family later reported seeing multiple prior bruises, and an LPN stated she forgot to complete the incident report and forgot to notify the family.
A resident with type 2 DM had an MDS that was coded as receiving insulin injections, even though the physician order showed Trulicity, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, not insulin. The resident’s care plan identified diabetes requiring medication for control, and the MDS coordinator said she used a drug class index to guide coding. The administrator stated she would have expected the MDS to be coded accurately.
Falls Care Plan Not Updated With Current Interventions: A resident with multiple chronic conditions, wheelchair use, and a moderate fall risk had repeated falls and several interventions added or used after those falls, including lying the resident down when sleeping, wheelchair anti-roll measures, therapy reattempts, and allowing the resident to sleep without waking. Staff and the DON confirmed that some of these measures were being used but were not on the care plan or task list, and the resident also had a fall with a forehead hematoma.
A resident with type 2 diabetes was inaccurately coded in the MDS as receiving insulin injections, despite only being prescribed oral medications. The DON confirmed the error, and the MDS coordinator admitted to a misunderstanding, thinking Jardiance was an insulin injection. The facility's policy did not address MDS accuracy.
A facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and bipolar disorder. The care plan did not address the resident's failure to use the call light for assistance, despite being dependent on staff. Interviews revealed uncertainty about the timely implementation of care plan changes.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was left on a bedpan for hours due to staff oversight and communication breakdowns. The facility's electronic medical record system did not allow for proper documentation of repositioning tasks, contributing to the deficiency in care.
A nursing assistant was not deemed competent upon hire or annually thereafter to provide care to residents. Despite completing an online clinical assessment training, the facility did not provide specific competencies for the NA-C. The facility's policies required a department orientation plan and checklist to document training and competency evaluations, which were not followed.
Failure to Notify Family of New Bruise
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the resident’s representative was notified of a new bruise on the resident’s left temple. The resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, non-Alzheimer’s dementia with behavioral disturbance, hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and delirium, and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. The care plan noted the resident had cognitive impairment and was unable to answer questions. On observation, the resident was found with a dark purple bruise on the left temple measuring about 3 x 4 centimeters, and the bruise remained unchanged on later observation the same day. Family stated she had seen bruises on the resident’s head and arms over the prior 6 months and said staff had not notified her before she arrived and saw the current bruise. Nursing staff reported the bruise was noticed and reported to the nurse, but the nurse later stated she forgot to complete an incident report and forgot to notify the family. The facility incident documentation described a reddish purple spot on the left side of the face near the eye with unknown origin, and the DON stated she expected an incident report at the time of discovery and family notification. The facility policy required notification for an accident resulting in injury or circumstances requiring physician intervention.
MDS Coding Error for Diabetes Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident’s medication status was accurately coded in the MDS assessment for one resident reviewed for medications, specifically insulin. The resident had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and the quarterly MDS indicated diabetes. Physician orders showed the resident received Trulicity subcutaneous solution pen-injector 0.75 mg/0.5 ml at bedtime every Wednesday for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and the care plan stated the resident had type 2 diabetes and required medication for control. However, the MDS Section N recorded that the resident received insulin injections on one day during the last 7 days or since admission/entry or reentry. During an email exchange, the MDS coordinator stated she used the MDS 3.0 Drug Class Index developed by MED-PASS to guide coding, and the administrator stated she would have expected MDS assessments to be coded accurately. The facility MDS 3.0 Completion policy stated that all disciplines shall follow Chapter 3 of the current RAI Manual for coding each assessment.
Falls Care Plan Not Updated With Current Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the falls care plan for R5 was updated to include current interventions. R5’s significant change MDS indicated intact cognition, dependence on staff for transfers, partial to moderate assistance with oral hygiene, substantial to maximal assistance with dressing and personal hygiene, and use of a manual wheelchair for mobility. R5’s diagnoses included HTN, CAD, renal insufficiency, DM, depression, and asthma. The care plan identified R5 as a moderate fall risk and included older interventions such as a low bed, treating falls as unwitnessed, pharmacy review, monitoring for injury after falls, and no blue chucks in the wheelchair seat. The record showed multiple falls and related interventions that were not added to the care plan. After falls on 3/31/25 and 4/1/25, the intervention was to lay R5 in bed when sleeping, but this was not included in the care plan. After a 5/8/25 fall, the plan included removing blue chucks from the wheelchair seat, but the additional intervention of anti-roll back brakes was not included; a GradA-aide was used instead because the chair could not have anti-roll back brakes due to oxygen use. After a 5/30/25 fall, therapy was reattempted but R5 refused, and this was not added to the plan. After falls on 7/26/25 and 7/28/25, the intervention was to monitor R5 and allow her to sleep as long as she wanted in the morning, but this was not included in the care plan. Additional falls occurred on 8/29/25, 9/28/25, 12/13/25, and 12/19/25. Staff were re-educated on safety after some of these events, and after the 12/13/25 fall staff were re-educated on lying R5 down, but R5 had been refusing to lie down when the fall occurred and this intervention was not included in the care plan. On 12/19/25, R5 fell out of her wheelchair and had a large hematoma on the left side of her forehead. Observation showed R5 in her wheelchair with oxygen at 1L NC, a device on the back of the chair to prevent rolling backward, and a low bed in her room. Interviews with nursing staff and the DON confirmed that some interventions, including close observation, wheelchair braking measures, and allowing R5 to sleep without waking her, were being used or discussed but were not on the task list or care plan. The facility policy stated that an at-risk-for-falls care plan would be completed for each resident and updated accordingly with interventions consistent with the resident’s needs.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Diabetes Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accurate coding of a resident's medication status in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. A resident with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus was incorrectly coded as receiving insulin injections for seven days in their quarterly, admission, and significant change MDS assessments. However, the resident's physician orders and care plan indicated they were only on oral diabetic medications, specifically glimepiride and Jardiance, with no orders for insulin injections. During interviews, the Director of Nursing confirmed the resident was not on insulin, and the MDS coordinator admitted to mistakenly coding Jardiance as an insulin injection due to a misunderstanding. The facility's policy on maintaining MDS assessments did not address the accuracy of the MDS.
Failure to Implement Comprehensive Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident (R1) who was reviewed for care plan deficiencies. R1 had severe cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for care, and was incontinent with bowel and bladder. R1 also had a diagnosis of anxiety and manic depression and was on antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. The care plan for R1 identified verbal aggression related to bipolar disorder, with a goal of reducing episodes to one or fewer per week. However, the care plan did not address the resident's failure or refusal to use the call light for assistance, which was a significant oversight given R1's dependency on staff. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the administrator revealed that changes to R1's care plan had been made recently, but there was uncertainty about whether these changes were implemented in a timely manner. The facility's policy on Comprehensive Care Plans required that residents' goals, preferences, and outcomes be assessed during admission and before discharge, with an interdisciplinary team preparing an individualized care plan reflecting the resident's needs, interventions, measurable objectives, and timeframes. The lack of timely updates and the omission of the call light usage in R1's care plan contributed to the deficiency identified by the surveyors.
Failure to Reposition and Document Care for Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete appropriate assessments and reposition a resident, leading to a deficiency in care. A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of anxiety and manic depression was left on a bedpan for several hours. The incident occurred when two nursing assistants placed the resident on a bedpan and forgot to return to remove it. The resident was found by staff after calling out for assistance, indicating a lapse in monitoring and care. Interviews with staff revealed significant communication breakdowns and documentation issues. Nursing assistants reported challenges in handover communication, with some staff not receiving proper updates on resident care needs. The facility's electronic medical record system, Point Click Care (PCC), was not set up to allow staff to document repositioning tasks every two hours as required by the resident's care plan. This lack of documentation capability contributed to the failure to ensure the resident was repositioned regularly. The facility's processes for ensuring continuity of care were inadequate, as evidenced by the lack of a structured handover communication system and the inability to document care interventions accurately. Staff interviews highlighted the absence of a reliable method for communicating resident updates and care needs, leading to the oversight in repositioning the resident and addressing her needs while on the bedpan.
Failure to Ensure Competency of Nursing Assistant
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a nursing assistant (NA-C) was deemed competent upon hire or annually thereafter to provide care to residents. The NA-C was hired on June 3, 2024, and worked multiple shifts throughout June, July, and August 2024. Although the NA-C completed a clinical assessment training through an online program on May 8, 2024, the facility did not provide specific competencies for the NA-C upon hire. An interview with the administrator and director of nursing confirmed that competency training should be provided to all employees to reflect current knowledge of the facility's resident-specific needs and services. The facility's January 2024 Orientation policy stated that a department orientation plan would be provided to reflect the skills and competencies of each employee before resident contact. Additionally, a department checklist was to be used to document training and competency evaluations during the employee's orientation until competency was demonstrated. The July 2024 Facility Assessment indicated that the facility would use an action plan to assess residents' needs to determine staffing services and provide training for staff according to the specific care area needs of the residents.
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 26 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Truman
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lakeview Methodist Health Care Center | 13.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
| Good Samaritan Society - St James | 14.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Living Meadows At Luther - Madelia | 14.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Seasons Healthcare | 15 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| St Lukes Lutheran Care Center | 21.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Truman Senior Living.
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.