Below 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 July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Morningside Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with impaired cognition and a history of aggressive behaviors toward staff, including hitting, kicking, and yelling, was not care-planned for aggression toward others despite multiple documented incidents. Another cognitively impaired, wandering resident with socially inappropriate behaviors approached this resident, touching their clothing and wheelchair. Before staff could intervene, the seated resident became angry, yelled for the other to go away, and slapped the wandering resident across the face, causing facial redness. This sequence of events, combined with the lack of care-planned interventions for known aggression, resulted in a failure to protect a resident from physical abuse.
The facility failed to respond to residents' call lights within the required timeframe, affecting several residents' dignity and care. Residents experienced significant delays, with some waiting over an hour for assistance, leading to discomfort and distress. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in understanding the expected response times, contributing to the deficiency.
The facility failed to address and follow up on grievances raised by the resident council, affecting all residents' quality of life and care. The grievance policy was not followed, with no documented resolutions or explanations for unresolved issues. The Activity Director lacked training, and the Administrator admitted to not providing documentation to the council, leading to a deficiency in honoring residents' rights.
The facility failed to obtain physician orders for code status for four residents, despite their face sheets indicating specific code statuses. Interviews and record reviews revealed that the care plans and physician orders did not reflect the residents' code statuses, as confirmed by facility staff.
The facility allowed four volunteers to interact with residents without completing TB skin testing, as the policy did not include volunteers in the TB surveillance process. This oversight could potentially affect all 52 residents. The Administrator and DON were unaware of the need for TB checks for volunteers.
A facility failed to include dialysis in a resident's care plan, despite the resident attending dialysis sessions three times a week. The resident, who required assistance with daily activities and had a history of falls, did not have dialysis needs addressed in their baseline care plan. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the resident's dialysis schedule, contributing to the oversight.
A facility failed to complete a discharge summary for a resident, violating its discharge planning policy. The resident, with diagnoses including debility and heart disease, was discharged without a documented recapitulation of their stay or a copy provided to them, despite the policy requiring such documentation.
A facility failed to ensure proper communication and documentation for a resident requiring dialysis. The resident's care plan did not address dialysis needs, and there were no orders for assessments or monitoring of the dialysis site. Staff interviews revealed that vital signs and weight were taken, but no paperwork was exchanged with the dialysis center, indicating a lack of consistent communication and documentation practices.
Failure to Protect Resident From Abuse During Resident-to-Resident Altercation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from physical abuse when one resident slapped another resident on the cheek. The facility’s abuse and neglect policy states that residents have the right to be free from all types of abuse, including physical abuse, and that abusers may include other residents. The resident who committed the slap had an annual MDS showing impaired cognition, dependence on staff for showers, toileting, and transfers, and diagnoses including urinary tract infection, diabetes, and respiratory failure. The resident’s care plan, dated after the incident, later identified that this resident could be a threat to others and could become physically and verbally aggressive, but these interventions were not in place at the time of the event. In the days leading up to the incident, nursing progress notes documented multiple episodes of aggressive behavior by the resident who later slapped another resident. On several dates in December, this resident was noted to be refusing care, hitting, kicking, cursing, yelling at staff, and swinging at them when they approached. Despite these repeated documented behaviors, there were no care-planned interventions for aggressive behaviors toward others in place at the time of the incident. The Assistant Administrator acknowledged that the resident did not have care-planned interventions for aggression because the resident was relatively new and the facility was not aware of the resident’s history, even though the record showed multiple aggressive episodes toward staff prior to the assault. The resident who was slapped had a quarterly MDS indicating impaired cognition, a need for moderate assistance with ADLs such as showering, toileting, and transfers, and diagnoses including dementia, bipolar disorder, and insomnia. This resident’s care plan noted socially inappropriate and disruptive behaviors, including removing clothing in common areas, impaired decision making, and disorganized thinking. On the day of the incident, progress notes and the facility’s self-report documented that the cognitively impaired resident approached the other resident, picked at the resident’s clothing and wheelchair, and touched the resident’s chair and clothes. Before staff could intervene, the seated resident became angry, yelled for the other to go away, and slapped the other resident across the face, causing facial redness. Staff interviews confirmed that the wandering behavior of the victim and the aggressive behavior of the assailant were known, but the assailant’s aggressive behaviors had not been incorporated into the care plan prior to the incident, resulting in a failure to protect the resident from abuse.
Delayed Call Light Responses Compromise Resident Dignity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely responses to residents' call lights, which compromised the dignity and care of several residents. Observations and interviews revealed that call lights were not answered within the facility's policy timeframe, which states that calls should be answered as soon as possible, but no later than five minutes. In multiple instances, residents experienced significant delays, with some waiting over an hour for assistance. This delay in response was consistent across several residents, affecting their ability to receive timely help with toileting, pain management, and other personal needs. Resident #15, who had moderately impaired cognition and required substantial assistance with daily activities, experienced prolonged waits for call light responses, leading to incontinence and discomfort. The call light logs for this resident showed multiple instances where the response time exceeded the policy's five-minute requirement, with some delays lasting over an hour. This lack of timely response resulted in the resident experiencing cold and wet conditions due to incontinence, which was distressing for them. Other residents, such as Resident #1 and Resident #27, also faced similar issues with delayed call light responses. Resident #1, who had intact cognitive skills but required assistance with showers and experienced MS flare-ups, reported waiting over 20-30 minutes for assistance, which affected their comfort and pain management. Resident #27, who was dependent on staff for all care due to various health conditions, expressed dissatisfaction with the long wait times, which sometimes exceeded an hour. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in their understanding of the expected response times, with some staff believing the policy allowed for longer response times than stated, contributing to the deficiency in care.
Failure to Address Resident Council Grievances
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately address and follow up on grievances raised by the resident council, which affected the quality of life and care for all residents. The facility's grievance policy mandates prompt handling of grievances, providing written responses, and conducting follow-ups to ensure satisfaction. However, the review of resident council minutes from several months showed no references to prior concerns, no documented resolutions, and no explanations for unresolved issues. Interviews with resident council members revealed that the facility did not follow up on grievances or provide updates on recommendations made by the council. The Activity Director admitted to not receiving formal training on coordinating resident council meetings and was unaware of the process for addressing residents' concerns. The Assistant Administrator stated that concerns were discussed with the administrative team and addressed at quality assurance meetings, but sometimes ongoing issues were not explained to the resident council. The Administrator expected the resident council president to be informed about the status of grievances, but acknowledged that no documentation was provided to the council regarding resolutions. This lack of communication and documentation led to the deficiency in honoring residents' rights to organize and participate in resident/family groups effectively.
Failure to Obtain Physician Orders for Code Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to obtain a physician's order for code status for four residents out of the 13 sampled residents. This deficiency was identified through interviews and record reviews. The facility's policy and procedure regarding the provision of basic life support were requested but not provided. The physician services policy indicates that orders for a resident's immediate care and needs can be provided by a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist. However, for Residents #26, #22, #51, and #16, there were no physician orders for their code status, despite their face sheets indicating specific code statuses. Resident #26 was readmitted with a diagnosis of dementia, heart disease, arthritis, and a fracture of the right leg, with a code status of Do Not Resuscitate, but this was not reflected in the care plan or physician orders. Resident #22, with a history of stroke and heart disease, was listed as Full Code, but again, there was no physician order. Resident #51, admitted with a fracture and a Stage 4 pressure ulcer, was also listed as Full Code without a corresponding physician order. Similarly, Resident #16, with multiple chronic conditions, was listed as Full Code, but the care plan and physician orders did not reflect this. Interviews with facility staff, including an RN, the DON, and the Administrator, confirmed that there should be a physician order for code status, but it was not present for these residents.
Infection Control Lapse: Volunteers Without TB Testing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to infection control guidelines by allowing four volunteers to interact with residents without completing the necessary TB skin testing. The facility's policy mandates TB testing for new employees but does not address volunteers, leading to a gap in the infection control process. The volunteers began their service without undergoing TB skin tests, which could potentially affect all 52 residents in the facility. During an interview, the Administrator and Director of Nursing admitted they were unaware that TB checks were required for volunteers and had not included them in the TB skin test surveillance process.
Failure to Include Dialysis in Resident's Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident who required dialysis. The resident, who was admitted with a history of falls and slight confusion, required assistance with various activities of daily living. Despite these needs, the baseline care plan did not address the resident's dialysis requirements, which is a critical medical procedure for individuals whose kidneys are not functioning properly. The absence of dialysis in the care plan was confirmed through interviews with the resident, who mentioned attending dialysis sessions three times a week, and various staff members, including the MDS/Care Plan Coordinator, Social Services Designee, Registered Nurse, and Director of Nursing, all acknowledged that dialysis should have been included in the care plan. The deficiency was identified through a review of the resident's records and interviews with the resident and staff. The Physician Order Sheet for the resident did not contain any orders for assessments or vitals related to dialysis, indicating a lack of comprehensive planning for the resident's medical needs. The staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the resident's dialysis schedule, which contributed to the oversight in the care planning process. This failure to include dialysis in the care plan highlights a significant gap in addressing the resident's medical needs and ensuring their well-being.
Failure to Complete Discharge Summary for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a discharge summary for a resident, identified as Resident #55, and did not adhere to its own discharge planning policy. The facility's policy, effective January 11, 2024, outlines a comprehensive discharge planning process that includes initiating discharge planning upon admission, involving residents and their representatives, conducting thorough assessments, and developing a written discharge plan. However, upon review, it was found that there was no recapitulation of Resident #55's stay or evidence that a copy was provided to the resident at discharge. Resident #55's assessment, dated November 5, 2024, indicated that the resident had intact cognitive skills, was independent with eating and oral hygiene, required supervision or standby assistance with certain activities, and needed substantial assistance with bathing. The resident's diagnoses included debility, anxiety disorder, heart disease, and lung disease. Despite these needs, the facility did not document a discharge summary or provide it to the resident, which is a requirement under their discharge planning policy.
Failure in Communication and Documentation for Dialysis Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper communication and documentation between its staff and the dialysis center, affecting a resident who required dialysis services. The resident, diagnosed with chronic kidney disease Stage 3 and a history of acute kidney failure, did not have a baseline care plan addressing dialysis needs. The Physician Order Sheet lacked orders for assessments or vitals before and after dialysis, and there were no orders regarding the monitoring of the hemodialysis catheter or fistula care. Progress notes indicated that the resident was transported to and from dialysis without documented assessments or communication with the dialysis center. Interviews with the resident and facility staff revealed that vital signs and weight were taken before and after dialysis, but no paperwork was exchanged between the facility and the dialysis center. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that there should be an order for dialysis and that vital signs and weight should be recorded. However, the facility only sent paperwork and a report with the resident to dialysis once a week, indicating a lack of consistent communication and documentation practices in line with standards of care.
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 49 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 Chillicothe
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grand River Health Care | 0.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 1 |
| Stonebridge Chillicothe | 0.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Livingston Manor Care Center | 0.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 17 | 0 |
| Eastview Manor Care Center | 19.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Sunnyview Nursing Home & Apartments | 19.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 10 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Morningside Center.
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.