Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before 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 New Madrid Living Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Inconsistent Code Status Documentation: The facility failed to ensure code status was accurately and consistently documented for two residents. For both residents, the POS showed full code while OHDNR/DNR forms and care plans showed DNR status, and one resident stated a preference to be full code. Staff interviews showed differing practices for checking code status in the EMR, chart, and paper folders, and the SSD said one resident must have signed in the wrong spot on the code status form.
Failure to provide written transfer and bed hold notifications: Four residents had hospital transfers or discharges with no documentation that the resident or representative was given written notice of the transfer, the reason for transfer, or the bed hold rate. Staff interviews showed inconsistent handling of transfer and bed hold forms, and the Administrator stated the bed hold rate had never been included on the form.
Failure to complete a baseline care plan on admission: A resident admitted with dementia, COPD, CHF, DM2, anxiety, depression, pain, and other conditions had physician orders for PT/OT, continuous O2 at 2 L/min, HOB elevated while lying flat, and a regular diet, but no baseline care plan with specific interventions was documented. Facility policy and staff interviews indicated the temporary/baseline care plan was expected within 24 to 48 hours of admission.
The facility inaccurately coded the MDS for two residents, failing to document key diagnoses and incorrectly noting medication use. Interviews revealed reliance on charts and staff input, but discrepancies indicate a failure to accurately reflect residents' conditions.
The facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices for two residents. An LPN did not wear a gown while administering medication to a resident with a gastrostomy tube, violating the Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy. Additionally, a resident with Covid-19 was observed unmasked with an open door, and CNAs did not wear appropriate PPE or follow isolation precautions. The DON and Administrator expected adherence to CDC guidelines, which was not followed.
A resident sustained a fractured right tibia and fibula after a CNA failed to follow the care plan and use a mechanical lift during a transfer. The resident, who had Alzheimer’s and was dependent on staff for transfers, was injured when their legs became entangled. The incident was not reported immediately, and the injury was discovered later by other staff members.
Inconsistent Code Status Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that code status was accurately and consistently documented throughout the medical record for two residents. For one resident, the Physician Order Sheet showed a full code order, while the Outside the Hospital Do Not Resuscitate form showed DNR status signed by the resident and physician, and the care plan also listed DNR code status. During interview, the resident stated a preference to be full code. For the second resident, the Physician Order Sheet showed full code, while the Outside the Hospital Do Not Resuscitate form showed DNR status signed by the resident and physician, the DNR form showed DNR status reviewed and verified by the SSD, and the care plan listed DNR code status. Staff interviews showed inconsistent understanding of where code status should be verified and documented. An LPN stated the code status was viewed on the EMR main screen and in the paper folder system, and said the full code status for the second resident was most likely the standard admission order. Another LPN said code status should be checked in the chart/face sheet and on the physician's order sheet and expected it to be documented accurately and consistently. The SSD stated code status was reviewed at the first of each month and with quarterly assessments, and said the first resident must have signed in the wrong spot when signing the code status form upon admission. The RN, CNA, Administrator, and ADON all stated they expected code status to be documented consistently and accurately throughout the resident's medical record.
Failure to Provide Written Transfer and Bed Hold Notifications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify residents and their representatives in writing of hospital transfers/discharges, including the reasons for transfer and the bed hold policy with the bed hold rate, for four of five sampled residents. Resident #2 was transferred to the hospital and later readmitted, but the record contained no documentation that the resident’s representative was informed in writing of the transfer/discharge, the reason for the transfer, or the bed hold rate at the time of the transfer. Resident #6 had a similar hospital transfer and readmission, and the record also lacked documentation of written notification to the representative, the reason for transfer, and the bed hold rate. Resident #10 was transferred to the hospital twice and readmitted after each transfer, but there was no documentation that the resident’s representative was informed in writing of either transfer/discharge, the reasons for transfer, or the bed hold rate for either event. Resident #21 was also transferred to the hospital and readmitted, and the record lacked documentation of written notice to the representative, the reason for transfer, and the bed hold rate. Staff interviews showed the LPN said transfer and bed hold forms were copied from the admission packet and given to the resident before each transfer, but the bed hold rate was not sent unless family asked; the SSD said the bed hold rate was not filled out on the form given at transfer; the ADON said nurses printed the bed hold policy and had the resident sign it; and the Administrator said he expected the reason for transfer to be documented and that the bed hold rate had never been included on the form.
Failure to Complete Baseline Care Plan on Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan with specific interventions for one resident upon admission. The resident was admitted on 06/11/25 with diagnoses including dementia, presence of a cardiac pacemaker, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, COPD, interstitial pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, CHF, and pain. Review of the medical record showed physician orders for physical therapy and occupational therapy to evaluate and treat, oxygen at 2 liters per minute continuously, head of bed elevated while lying flat, and a regular diet, but there was no baseline care plan with specific interventions documented. The facility policy titled Care Plan, Temporary stated that a temporary care plan would be implemented within 24 hours of admission and that the interdisciplinary care plan team and/or admitting nurse would review physician orders and implement a nursing care plan to meet the resident's immediate care needs. During interview, RN B said the admitting nurse was responsible for implementing a care plan within 48 hours of admission. The Administrator and DON also stated they would expect a resident's baseline care plan to be completed within 48 hours of admission.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for two residents, leading to discrepancies in their documented medical conditions and medications. For Resident #10, the MDS did not document diagnoses of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), osteoporosis, and dementia, despite these being present in the medical record. Additionally, the MDS inaccurately indicated that the resident received hypoglycemic and antipsychotic medications on a routine basis, which was not supported by the medical record. Similarly, for Resident #28, the MDS failed to document diagnoses of bradycardia, GERD, dementia, anxiety, and stroke, and incorrectly noted the routine use of antipsychotic medication, which was not ordered. Interviews with the MDS Coordinator and the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that the MDS assessments were completed using information from charts, electronic records, and staff input, with the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual as a guide. However, the discrepancies indicate a failure in accurately reflecting the residents' current conditions in the MDS. The DON and Administrator acknowledged the expectation for the MDS to accurately represent the residents' conditions, highlighting a gap between expected and actual practice in the facility's assessment process.
Infection Control Deficiencies in Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices for two residents, which was observed during a survey. For Resident #10, who had a gastrostomy tube, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) did not adhere to the Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) policy by failing to wear a gown while administering medication and feeding through the gastrostomy tube. The facility's policy required the use of gloves and gowns for residents with indwelling medical devices, which was not followed in this instance. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that staff were expected to use EBP per CDC guidelines for residents with indwelling devices. For Resident #30, who tested positive for Covid-19 and was on isolation precautions, multiple observations showed that the resident's door was left open, and the resident was unmasked. Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) failed to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gowns and gloves, and did not change N95 masks or close the door upon exiting the room. Additionally, visitors were allowed in the room without wearing gowns and gloves. The DON and Administrator stated that they expected staff to follow CDC guidelines for isolation precautions, which were not adhered to in these instances.
Failure to Follow Care Plan During Transfer Results in Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the safety of a resident when staff did not follow the care plan and use proper technique during a transfer, resulting in the resident sustaining a fractured right tibia and fibula. The resident, who had diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease and seizure disorder, was dependent on staff for transfers and required the use of a mechanical lift. However, a CNA transferred the resident without the mechanical lift, leading to the resident's legs becoming entangled and causing the injury. The incident was not reported immediately as the CNA did not suspect any injury at the time. The resident's care plan clearly indicated the need for assistance with activities of daily living, including transfers using a mechanical lift. Despite this, the CNA chose not to use the lift, resulting in the resident's injury. The resident was later found with a swollen and bruised leg, and an X-ray confirmed fractures. The resident was admitted to the hospital for further treatment after the family requested a transfer. Interviews with staff revealed that the CNA was aware of the requirement to use a mechanical lift but chose not to follow the care plan. The CNA did not report the incident immediately, and the injury was only discovered later by other staff members. The facility's failure to ensure adherence to the care plan and proper transfer techniques directly led to the resident's injury.
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 39 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 New Madrid
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cotton Point Living Center | 11.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Portageville Health Care Center | 14.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Aspire Senior Living East Prairie | 15.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Reelfoot Manor Health And Rehab | 16.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Annie's Garden Skilled Nursing | 18.5 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for New Madrid Living 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.