Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of October 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Aspire Senior Living Carthage during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Failure to provide or offer routine showers: A resident with hemiplegia, anxiety, and MDD was dependent on staff for bathing and said he/she went more than two weeks without a shower and wanted more showers. The record showed gaps in shower documentation, including a 15-day period with no documented shower provided or offered, while CNA and LPN interviews confirmed residents were generally to receive showers twice weekly and refusals should be documented.
Dirty Shower Room With Black Buildup: A shower room had a blackish film/residue in the corner of the stall, with a dripping shower head and blackish water draining into the same area from the eyewash station pipe. The housekeeping supervisor said showers were supposed to be cleaned daily, but no cleaning log was available. Staff, including a CNA, housekeeping aide, LPN, ADON, DON, maintenance supervisor, and administrator, observed the buildup and said it looked like mold or grime, while one staff member said the issue had been seen earlier but was not reported or cleaned effectively.
A resident admitted with chronic kidney disease, hepatorenal syndrome, and an existing implanted vascular access port did not have the port addressed in the admission assessment or care plan, and there were no physician orders for flushing, monitoring, or drawing blood from the port for an extended period. Despite multiple CBC and CMP lab orders, staff documentation did not reflect issues with lab collection until later, when IV fluids were ordered via the already accessed port and a monthly flush order was added, still without specific monitoring or blood-draw orders. In interviews, an LPN, an RN, the DON, and the ADON all acknowledged that implanted ports require physician orders and inclusion on the care plan, and that an RN accessed the port for blood draws after the lab was unable to obtain a sample, without a documented order to do so, confirming the facility’s failure to follow its own policies and standards of practice for implanted port management.
Failure to Provide and Document Colostomy Care: Two residents with ostomies did not receive consistent assessment and documentation of colostomy care. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of removing the bag had no routine physician order for ostomy care, no documented stoma assessments, and no charted bag or wafer changes, and was observed with the ostomy uncovered under a brief. A second resident who performed self-care had routine change orders documented, but staff did not document ongoing assessment of the stoma or surrounding skin. Interviews showed staff understood that CNAs changed bags, LPNs changed wafers, and nurses should document and assess the site, but the records did not reflect that care.
Staff failed to consistently document thorough weekly skin assessments and did not always follow physician orders when applying topical treatments for skin conditions. Several residents with complex medical histories experienced incomplete documentation of skin issues, and topical medications were applied without proper authorization. Care plans did not always reflect ongoing skin concerns, and communication lapses with physicians were noted.
A resident with a history of psychiatric conditions reported a possible abuse incident to an LPN, who documented the statement but did not immediately notify supervisory staff or report the allegation to the state within the required two-hour timeframe. The delay was discovered by another nurse on a later shift, leading to a late report to the State Survey Agency and a deficiency in the facility's abuse reporting procedures.
Failure to Provide or Offer Routine Showers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect the resident's right to self-determination when staff did not ensure the resident received, or was offered, showers on a routine basis according to the resident's reasonable preference. The resident had hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebrovascular disease affecting the left non-dominant side, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. The quarterly MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact and dependent on staff for showers, bathing, personal hygiene, and shower/bathing transfers. The care plan directed staff to assist with daily care, encourage the resident to do what was within physical ability, provide bathing per schedule, and noted the resident refused bathing/showers and may take bed baths. The resident told the surveyor he/she went over two weeks without a shower earlier in July 2026 and wanted more showers, stating staff said he/she refused showers but they just did not want to give them. The CNA shower review and bathing task documentation showed showers on some dates and a refusal on one date, but the nurses' notes did not document showers given or refused from 07/02/26 through 07/18/26, and the record did not show a shower provided or offered during that 15-day period. Staff interviews indicated residents were generally supposed to receive showers two times a week, refusals should be documented, and another shower should be offered later if a resident refused.
Dirty Shower Room With Black Buildup
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents had a clean and comfortable environment when the shower in the shower room between the 400 and 500 hall had a blackish substance in the corner of the shower stall. The facility policy titled, Cleaning Bathrooms, required shower walls and floor surfaces to be sprayed and wiped clean, hair to be removed from the drain plate, and the bathroom floor to be mopped. The facility did not provide a cleaning schedule or logs for cleaning the resident shower rooms. On observation, the shower stall had a blackish film or residue covering the tile and grout/caulking lines in the left corner going up the wall and toward the drain, covering about a foot and a half square. The shower head sprayer was dripping water onto the shower floor. The housekeeping supervisor observed blackish water coming from the eyewash station pipe draining into the left corner of the shower, and staff reported that residents had been emptying drinks such as soda and coffee into the eyewash station drain. The housekeeping supervisor stated staff were supposed to mop and clean the shower rooms daily, but there was no log showing completion of cleaning. Staff interviews showed the black substance had been noticed by multiple staff members, but it was not reported or addressed consistently. A CNA said he/she first saw the black substance about a week earlier and did not report it or attempt to clean it. The housekeeping aide said he/she cleaned the shower room but could not get the black substance off the tile and grout and did not tell anyone. The LPN, ADON, DON, maintenance supervisor, and administrator all observed or were told about the black buildup and stated they would not want to use the shower, with the administrator stating that if staff were unable to get the shower clean, they should close it until it could be cleaned properly.
Failure to Obtain Orders and Care Plan for Implanted Vascular Access Port
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to obtain and implement physician orders and care planning for an implanted vascular access port for one resident. The resident was admitted with chronic kidney disease, hepatorenal syndrome, and an existing implanted port, but the nursing admission note and readmission summary did not address the port. The resident’s care plan, initiated shortly after admission, included problems related to limited physical mobility and liver disease due to cirrhosis, but did not include any problem, goal, or intervention related to the implanted port. Review of the resident’s physician order sheets for December and January showed no orders for flushing, monitoring, or drawing blood from the implanted port. In February, multiple lab tests (CBC and CMPs) were ordered, and nursing notes from early to mid-February did not document any issues with obtaining these labs. On a later date in February, a nursing progress note documented that the resident was lethargic with poor fluid intake, and the physician ordered IV fluids via the currently accessed port. Subsequent physician orders included a monthly saline flush of the port and IV sodium chloride infusions via the port, but there were still no documented orders for monitoring the port or for blood draws from it. Interviews with staff confirmed that the resident had an implanted port on admission and that there should have been physician orders for flushing, monitoring, and drawing blood from the port, as well as inclusion of the port on the admission assessment and care plan. LPNs, an RN, the DON, and the ADON all stated that implanted ports require specific physician orders and care planning, and that an RN accessed the resident’s port to obtain blood after the lab was unable to obtain an adequate sample, without a documented order to draw blood from the port. The DON acknowledged that the resident came in with a port but initially had no orders for its care and that only one flushing order dated later in the stay was seen, confirming the lack of comprehensive orders and care planning for the implanted port.
Failure to Provide and Document Colostomy Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate colostomy care and documentation for two residents who had ostomies. For one resident with severe cognitive impairment, an indwelling catheter, and a colostomy, the record showed no physician order for routine colostomy care, only an as-needed change order. Staff did not routinely assess the colostomy site in skin checks, monthly summaries, admission assessments, or progress notes, and the TAR did not document completion of colostomy changes during March or April 2026. The care plan noted the resident was combative with colostomy care and removed the bag, but staff did not document the resident removing the bag or document stoma assessment and wafer changes. During observation, the resident was found with a brief covering the ostomy area, the stoma partially visible, no wafer or bag in place, and fecal matter on suprapubic catheter tubing. For a second resident with moderate cognitive impairment, vascular dementia, lung cancer, and colon cancer, the record showed orders for colostomy change as needed, colostomy change every three days, and independent colostomy care with staff support as needed. Staff documented the routine three-day changes, but did not document assessment of the colostomy site in skin checks or progress notes across March and April 2026. Notes stated the resident cared for the colostomy independently, but the record did not show assessment of the stoma area, surrounding skin, or site condition during those entries. The care plan was later revised to reflect limited mobility and some staff assistance. Interviews with CNAs, LPNs, the ADON, RN, and DON showed inconsistent understanding of ostomy responsibilities and documentation. Staff stated that CNAs changed ostomy bags, nurses changed wafers, and nurses should document completed ostomy care and assess the stoma site, but the record did not reflect those assessments for either resident. Staff also stated the first resident frequently removed the ostomy bag and that the behavior should be documented, yet the chart lacked such documentation. The DON acknowledged there should be physician orders for routine changes and assessment of the colostomy, and that the nurse should assess and document the stoma site, surrounding skin, and wafer changes.
Failure to Document Skin Assessments and Apply Treatments per Physician Orders
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to consistently perform and document complete weekly skin assessments for multiple residents, as required by facility policy. For three residents, there was a lack of thorough documentation regarding skin conditions, including incomplete or missing weekly skin audits and insufficient descriptions of observed skin issues. In several instances, staff did not record whether there were new or existing skin problems, nor did they provide detailed assessments of rashes, edema, or open areas, despite ongoing or recurring skin concerns. This lack of documentation was observed over several weeks and across multiple residents with complex medical histories, including dementia, heart failure, and recent infections. Additionally, staff applied topical treatments, such as antifungal creams, to residents' skin conditions without obtaining physician orders. In at least two cases, nurse aides reported applying antifungal creams to rashes based on their own assessment, and these treatments were not documented in the physician's order sheets. The use of these medications without proper authorization was confirmed through interviews and direct observation of medication in residents' rooms. Furthermore, some skin conditions, such as persistent rashes and cellulitis, were not included in the residents' care plans, and care planning did not reflect the ongoing need for monitoring or treatment of these issues. The deficiencies were identified through a combination of record review, staff and resident interviews, and direct observation. Residents affected had significant medical histories, including cognitive impairment, recent or ongoing infections, and skin fragility. Despite physician involvement in some cases, communication gaps were evident, with physicians not being notified of changes in residents' skin conditions in a timely manner. The lack of comprehensive assessment, documentation, and adherence to physician orders contributed to the facility's failure to provide care according to professional standards and residents' needs.
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that an allegation of possible abuse involving a resident was reported immediately to management and within two hours to the State Survey Agency, as required by both facility policy and federal regulations. The incident involved a resident with a history of depression, anxiety, delusions, and hallucinations, who reported to an LPN that someone had come into their room to rape them. The LPN documented the resident's statement and provided reassurance but did not notify supervisory staff or report the allegation as required. The resident's care plan was updated to reflect the statement, but there was no documentation of immediate notifications related to the allegation. The delay in reporting was identified when a nurse on a subsequent shift reviewed the previous note and notified the DON, who then initiated an investigation. The facility ultimately reported the allegation to the State Survey Agency more than 30 hours after the initial statement was made by the resident. Interviews with staff confirmed that they were aware of the requirement to report allegations of abuse immediately to supervisors and to the state within two hours, but the LPN did not follow these procedures because the resident did not name anyone and had a history of delusions. The failure to report the allegation in a timely manner constituted a deficiency in the facility's abuse reporting protocol.
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 95 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 2 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 Carthage
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| St Luke's Nursing And Rehabilitation | 0.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Aspire Senior Living Webb City | 9.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 10 | 0 |
| Sarcoxie Health Care Center | 10.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Nhc Healthcare, Joplin | 12.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Joplin Gardens | 14.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Aspire Senior Living Carthage.
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 October 2026) and official state health department websites.