Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around February 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 Oxford Health & Rehab Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for three residents. One resident receiving HD had a physician-ordered fluid restriction, but the care plan did not include monitoring or notification interventions, and the resident was later hospitalized for volume overload related to receiving too much fluid at the nursing home. A second resident with a PEG tube was observed independently administering liquid through the tube without an order or documented assessment for safe self-administration. A third resident repeatedly refused ordered monthly weights, but the care plan did not address the ongoing refusals, and staff reported the resident had not been weighed since admission.
A resident with ESRD receiving HD had a physician-ordered 1000 mL/day fluid restriction, but staff did not consistently total intake or monitor I&O to keep the resident within limits. Records showed repeated days when intake reached 1,440 mL, the physician was not notified, and the resident was later hospitalized for volume overload after presenting with respiratory distress.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity and Privacy: A CNA made a rude comment to a cognitively intact resident who asked for help putting away clothes, and an LPN provided PEG site care with the door open while another resident passed by. The DON stated the door should have been closed and residents should have privacy and be treated with dignity and respect.
Call lights were not kept within reach for two residents. One resident with Parkinson’s Disease, muscle weakness, difficulty walking, and moderate cognitive impairment had two call lights wrapped around the bed rail while seated in a recliner, leaving no accessible way to summon staff. Another resident with osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, and moderate cognitive impairment had the call light placed out of reach on the overbed light fixture and later wrapped around the overbed table base while he sat in a recliner; staff confirmed the call light should always be accessible.
Failure to Track and Resolve Resident Grievances: Residents repeatedly raised unresolved complaints about agency staff behavior and delayed evening meds during Resident Council meetings. The DON, ADON, and LSW did not clearly describe or carry out an effective grievance process, and the concerns were documented in meeting minutes over multiple months without resolution. Several residents were cognitively intact, while a few had moderate cognitive impairment based on BIMS scores.
An LPN removed Seroquel from one resident's medication card and gave it to another resident when the ordered dose was unavailable. The LPN acknowledged borrowing the medication and that the resident who owned it lost two doses. The DON confirmed medications should not be borrowed and that a backup pharmacy was available when meds were out of stock.
The facility failed to provide written notice of a resident's hospital transfer to the resident's representative as required by policy. A resident was sent to the ER for severe abdominal pain and later had surgery for a bowel perforation, but Social Services confirmed no written transfer notice was mailed because the resident had been in the facility less than 24 hours. The resident was later readmitted with an abdominal wound and had a BIMS score of 7, indicating moderate cognitive impairment.
Incorrect MDS Section N Coding for Medication Use: Two residents had inaccurate MDS coding related to medication use. One resident’s MDS did not reflect documented anti-anxiety medication administration despite an active Clonazepam order for anxiety, and another resident’s MDS incorrectly showed insulin injections even though the MAR showed no insulin was given during the month. The MDS Coordinator confirmed the coding errors and stated she was responsible for reviewing assessments before signing and submitting them.
An LPN prepared a resident’s medications and handed them to an RN, who then administered them to the resident instead of the same nurse completing both steps. The RN and DON confirmed this was not an accepted nursing standard of practice. The resident had Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia and was cognitively intact.
PEG Tube Feeding Not Administered per Order: A resident with a PEG tube was observed self-administering a brown liquid through the tube with a syringe, but there were no MD orders permitting independent administration and no documentation of an assessment for safe self-administration. RN staff stated tube feeding or supplements must be given by staff and monitored, and the ADON and Administrator said the resident should not have been doing this independently. The resident had a hx of laryngeal cancer and a BIMS score of 10, indicating moderate cognitive impairment.
Failure to monitor a resident receiving high-risk insulin therapy led to a deficiency. A resident with type 2 DM was ordered insulin glargine every 12 hours and Novolin R before meals, but the MAR/TAR showed no daily monitoring for signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. The facility policy required monitoring for adverse consequences of high-risk meds, and the DON confirmed the monitoring had not been implemented.
Insulin was found on a medication cart without open dates or beyond the 28-day room temperature limit after opening. An LPN confirmed several insulin vials and pens were expired or not dated, and the DON acknowledged that staff were responsible for checking insulin and removing it after 28 days.
A resident with multiple wounds and chronic pain did not receive ordered pain medication in a timely manner after admission. The admitting LPN failed to follow procedures for obtaining pain medication and did not document a pain scale score, even though the medication was available in the facility's dispensing system. The DON confirmed that the process was not followed, resulting in the resident experiencing significant pain without appropriate intervention.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and well-repaired environment for its residents. A resident's room had a stained privacy curtain, another had a broken closet door, and a third had dirty bed rails. Despite policies for cleaning and maintenance, these issues were not addressed, indicating lapses in the facility's procedures.
A facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident with severe cognitive deficits and hemiparesis, resulting in inadequate personal hygiene care. Observations showed the resident wearing the same soiled shirt over two days, despite the care plan requiring staff assistance with ADLs. Interviews with staff confirmed the care plan was not followed.
A resident with severe cognitive deficits and on hospice care was observed wearing the same dirty shirt for over a day, indicating a failure in providing adequate ADL care. Despite being in and out of the room, staff members, including a CNA and an LPN, did not notice or address the resident's unchanged clothing. Interviews revealed that the staff acknowledged the oversight and the need for daily clothing changes, regardless of hospice schedules.
A resident with a fracture of the left femur was found using a wheelchair that was too tall, preventing her feet from touching the floor and making self-propulsion difficult. Staff interviews confirmed the issue, and the facility lacked a policy for customizing wheelchairs to fit residents' needs.
Incomplete Care Plans for Fluid Restriction, PEG Tube Use, and Refused Weights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans for three residents. For a resident receiving hemodialysis, the care plan addressed dialysis but did not include interventions to monitor or maintain the physician-ordered 1000 mL fluid restriction or to notify the physician if the restriction was exceeded. The resident had diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease, a BIMS score of 9 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and received dialysis services while in the facility. Record review showed the resident was hospitalized for volume overload after presenting with respiratory distress, low oxygen saturation, and weakness. Hospital records stated the volume overload symptoms were related to getting too much fluid at the nursing home. During interview, facility leadership stated residents with fluid restrictions should have monitoring in place to ensure ordered fluid limits are not exceeded and the physician should be notified if restrictions are exceeded. For another resident with a PEG tube, staff observed the resident independently administering a brown liquid through the PEG tube using a syringe, but there were no physician orders allowing independent administration of tube feedings or supplements and no documentation that the resident had been assessed for the ability to safely self-administer. For a third resident, the care plan did not address repeated refusal of physician-ordered monthly weights; staff stated the resident had refused weights since admission, the physician and family were aware, and the resident had not been weighed since the initial admission weights. The resident had a BIMS score of 13 and a diagnosis including Secondary Hypertension.
Failure to Monitor Fluid Restriction for Dialysis Resident
Penalty
Summary
Safe, appropriate dialysis care/services were not provided for a resident with ESRD who was ordered hemodialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and had a physician-ordered 1000 mL/day fluid restriction. The facility did not provide a policy related to monitoring or implementing fluid restrictions, and staff stated they followed physician orders. Record review showed the resident also had a renal diet order with specific fluid allowances at meals and medication passes, but the facility did not maintain a continuous daily monitoring system to ensure the resident’s total intake stayed within the ordered limit. Documentation showed the resident was hospitalized for volume overload after presenting in respiratory distress, and the hospital assessment stated the resident had received too much fluid at the nursing home. The January 2026 record lacked I&O documentation for multiple dates, and later fluid intake records showed the resident received 1,440 mL in a 24-hour period on several days, exceeding the ordered 1,000 mL restriction. The physician was not notified when the restriction was exceeded. Staff interviews confirmed that intake was being documented but not totaled at the end of the shift, and the DON and Administrator acknowledged that the resident’s fluid intake was not being adequately monitored or tracked daily.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity and Privacy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect for two residents reviewed for dignity. For one resident, who was admitted with a diagnosis of cerebral infarction and had a BIMS score of 13 indicating cognitive intactness, the resident stated that a CNA was rude when asked for help putting away clothes that had been washed and returned by the resident’s son. The resident reported the CNA said, "I'm not laundry." The Unit Manager RN stated the resident had previously complained about the CNA being rude and that the comment made the resident feel bad because of the resident’s close relationship with the son. The Administrator and ADON stated they were unaware of the complaint and were unaware of any education or in-service provided to the CNA regarding the concern. The CNA confirmed making the statement and acknowledged it could have been perceived as rude. For another resident, who was admitted with a diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the larynx and had a BIMS score of 10 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, an LPN was observed providing PEG tube site care while the privacy curtain was closed but the door remained open. The resident was positioned close to the door, and another resident passed by in a wheelchair and waved during the care. The LPN stated she forgot to close the door and acknowledged residents should be treated with dignity and have privacy during care. The DON stated the door should have been closed and residents should have privacy and be treated with dignity and respect.
Call lights not kept within reach of two residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for two sampled residents. Facility policy stated staff would ensure the call light was within reach of the resident and secured as needed. For Resident #11, observations on 3/09/2026 showed the resident asleep and seated in a reclined position in a recliner without access to a call light; two call lights were wrapped around the bed rail and remained inaccessible during later observations the same day. The resident stated she had experienced falls in the past and that was why both call lights were wrapped around the positioning bar on her bed, and she confirmed she could not reach a call light or notify staff while sitting in the recliner. Resident #11’s record showed diagnoses including Parkinson’s Disease, muscle weakness, and difficulty walking, and an MDS BIMS score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. For Resident #104, an observation showed the resident sitting in a recliner about ten feet from the bed while the call light was lying on top of the overbed light fixture and not accessible. The resident stated he could not reach it, especially when in the recliner, and later said it had been placed up there when the floors were buffed. A later observation showed the call light wrapped around the base of the overbed table and still not within reach until a CNA repositioned the table next to the resident. Staff interviews confirmed the call light should always be accessible, and the resident’s record showed diagnoses including osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, and unsteadiness on feet, with an MDS BIMS score of 08 indicating moderate cognitive impairment.
Failure to Track and Resolve Resident Grievances
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement an effective grievance process to ensure resident concerns were received, tracked, investigated, and resolved for three of six months of Resident Council meeting minutes reviewed. The facility policy stated that the Grievance Official was responsible for overseeing the grievance process, receiving and tracking grievances through conclusion, leading investigations as needed, issuing written grievance decisions, keeping residents apprised of progress, and maintaining evidence of grievance results for at least three years. The policy also identified verbal complaints during resident or family council meetings as a forum for grievances. During a Resident Council meeting, 14 of 16 residents present reported that they had voiced grievances to facility staff that had not been resolved and that the concerns were documented in the meeting minutes. Residents reported ongoing concerns about agency staff, including lack of continuity of care, staff being on their phones, rude and uninterested behavior, and excessive delays in evening medication administration. Several residents stated that medications scheduled for 7:00-8:00 PM were sometimes not given until 10:00-11:00 PM when agency nurses were working, and they said these concerns had been ongoing for several months and had been discussed repeatedly during Resident Council meetings. Review of Resident Council minutes dated 10/14/25, 11/13/25, and 12/9/25 documented concerns about medications not being given on time, mainly with agency staff nurses, and bad attitudes from agency staff with no change. During interview, the Administrator and ADON stated they had experienced problems with agency staff but did not consider the issues to be grievances, describing grievances instead as matters such as missing items or clothing. They were unable to clearly describe the grievance process. The LSW stated she handled grievances and attended the monthly Resident Council meetings, and confirmed that the issue with how residents were treated by agency staff was written in every Resident Council meeting and had not been resolved. The residents involved included multiple cognitively intact residents, as well as residents with moderate cognitive impairment, based on BIMS scores documented in the record.
Medication Borrowed From One Resident for Another
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation of resident property when an LPN removed medication dispensed for one resident and administered it to another resident. During a medication pass observation, the LPN did not have Resident #46's ordered Seroquel 200 mg tablet and stated the resident was out of the medication. The LPN then removed two 100 mg tablets from Resident #67's Seroquel medication card and gave them to Resident #46. The facility policy stated that it was the facility's policy to protect each resident's health, welfare, and rights by prohibiting and preventing abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. Record review showed Resident #46 had an order for Seroquel 200 mg daily at 0800, and Resident #67 had an order for Seroquel 100 mg at bedtime. The LPN confirmed he borrowed Resident #67's Seroquel to administer to Resident #46 and acknowledged he was not aware he was not supposed to borrow medications. He also acknowledged Resident #67 lost two doses of medication, which could create a medication shortage. The DON confirmed medications should not be borrowed and stated the facility had a backup pharmacy available when medications were out of stock. Resident #67 was admitted with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the left non-dominant side, and the MDS indicated a BIMS score of 15, showing the resident was cognitively intact.
Failure to Notify Resident Representative of Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure written notification of a resident's hospital transfer was provided to the resident's representative in accordance with transfer and discharge requirements for one of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. Resident #8 was transferred from the facility to the emergency room for severe abdominal pain and later reported that the transfer occurred in January for a bowel perforation that required surgical repair. The facility policy titled Transfer and Discharge stated that transfer/discharge notice would be provided to the resident and the resident's representative in a language and manner they could understand. Social Services confirmed that a written notice of the hospital transfer was not mailed to the resident's representative because the resident had been in the facility less than 24 hours when transferred out. Record review also showed the resident was readmitted on 2/4/26 with diagnoses including an unspecified open wound of the abdominal wall, and a later MDS showed a BIMS score of 7, indicating moderate cognitive impairment.
Incorrect MDS Section N Coding for Medication Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately complete Section N of the MDS for two residents during the 7-day observation look-back period. For Resident #11, the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 2/3/26 indicated that the resident did not receive seven days of anti-anxiety medication during the look-back period of 1/28/26 through 2/3/26, even though the eMAR showed the resident received an anxiety medication during that time. The resident had an order for Clonazepam 0.5 mg by mouth every 12 hours for anxiety disorder, and the record also showed a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder and a BIMS score of 12, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. For Resident #28, the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/31/2025 was coded incorrectly in Section N300 and N350 related to insulin injections during the review look-back period. The MAR for December 2025 showed the resident was not administered insulin at all during that month, yet the MDS reflected insulin use. Resident #28 had a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy and a BIMS score of 15, indicating cognitive intactness. The MDS Coordinator confirmed both the incorrect coding and that she was responsible for reviewing assessments before signing and submitting them, and stated that she did not always fully review assessments completed by other nursing staff prior to signing them.
Medication Preparation and Administration Not Performed by Same Nurse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure medications were prepared and administered by the same nurse in accordance with accepted nursing standards of practice for one resident observed during medication pass. During an observation on B-Hall, an LPN removed a medicine cup containing prepared medications from the medication cart and handed it to an RN, asking her to administer the medications to the resident. The RN accepted the cup and went to the resident’s room to give the medications. During interviews, both nurses confirmed that the LPN prepared the resident’s medications and handed them to the RN for administration. The RN stated this was not a safe medication administration practice and explained that the nurse who prepares the medication should be the one to administer it to reduce the risk of medication errors and maintain medication accountability. The DON also confirmed that only the nurse who prepares the medication should administer it and stated this was not an accepted nursing standard of practice. The resident involved was admitted with Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia and had a BIMS score of 15, indicating cognitive intactness.
PEG Tube Feeding Not Administered per Order
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure tube feeding or supplements administered through a PEG tube were given according to physician orders for one resident with a PEG tube. The facility policy titled Enteral Nutrition stated that liquid nutritional supplements and substitutes would be given as ordered by the physician. On 3/09/2026 at 11:00 AM, Resident #84 was observed in his room administering a brown liquid through his PEG tube using a syringe. Record review showed there were no physician orders allowing the resident to independently administer tube feeding or supplements through the PEG tube, and there was no documentation that he had been assessed for the ability to safely self-administer tube feeding or supplements. RN #1 stated that tube feeding formula or supplements must be administered by staff and that staff are responsible for monitoring intake. The Administrator and Assistant DON stated the resident should not have been independently administering liquids through his PEG tube. Resident #84 was admitted on 10/20/2022 with a diagnosis that included malignant neoplasm of the larynx, and his MDS with an ARD of 12/07/2025 showed a BIMS score of 10, indicating moderate cognitive impairment.
Failure to Monitor High-Risk Insulin Therapy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure monitoring for adverse consequences of high-risk medications for one resident reviewed for medication regimen review. Resident #4 had orders for Insulin Glargine 100 units/mL, 98 units subcutaneously every 12 hours for type 2 diabetes mellitus with other specified complication, and Novolin R (insulin regular human) 77 units subcutaneously before meals for the same diagnosis. Review of the resident’s MAR and TAR for March 2026 showed no evidence of daily monitoring for signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, despite the resident receiving high-risk antidiabetic medications. The facility policy titled High Risk Medications stated that high-risk medications can include antidiabetics and that the resident’s plan of care shall alert staff to monitor for adverse consequences of any high-risk medications given. During interview, the DON confirmed that monitoring for signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia had not been implemented for Resident #4. The DON stated the facility maintained standing orders requiring monitoring for diabetic residents and that physician orders were reviewed monthly by administrative nursing staff, but this issue was not identified during that review. Resident #4 was admitted with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia and had a BIMS score of 15, indicating cognitive intactness.
Insulin Not Properly Dated or Discarded After Opening
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that insulin was labeled and stored according to accepted professional principles and the manufacturers’ instructions after opening. During observation of the C hall medication cart with an LPN, surveyors found multiple insulins in use that were either not dated when opened or had exceeded the 28-day room temperature storage limit, including insulin lispro, insulin glargine, insulin aspart, and Fiasp insulin for several residents. One resident had an open vial of insulin lispro without an open date, and another resident had an insulin glargine pen without an open date, while other residents had insulin vials and pens with open dates that placed them beyond the allowed storage period. Review of the medication administration competency checklist showed that staff were expected to date insulin when opened and discard insulin after 28 days per manufacturer instructions. The LPN confirmed that the insulin was in use past the 28-day limit and stated that expired insulin may lose potency and may not be as effective at controlling blood sugars. The DON also confirmed that insulin should be removed from medication carts after 28 days from the open date and acknowledged that failure to date insulin when opened and use of out-of-date insulin could make it less effective.
Failure to Provide Timely Pain Management for Resident with Chronic Pain
Penalty
Summary
A resident with multiple wounds, cellulitis of the perineum, and a history of pain and chronic pain was admitted to the facility and did not receive ordered pain medication in a timely manner. Upon admission, the resident complained of severe pain, but the admitting LPN did not have pain medication available and failed to follow the facility's process for obtaining pain medications, which included contacting the pharmacy or physician. The LPN also did not assess or document a pain scale score, despite the resident experiencing significant pain during the shift. Documentation in the health status note confirmed the resident was in pain and that no medications were on hand. The facility's medication dispensing system had the ordered pain medication available, but it was not accessed or administered to the resident as required. The DON confirmed that the process for obtaining pain medication was not followed and acknowledged that the resident's pain level was not properly documented. The EMAR showed that the resident did not receive the ordered pain medication on the day of admission, despite an active order for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen. The resident's representative and staff interviews corroborated that the resident experienced severe pain and did not receive timely pain management during the facility stay.
Deficiencies in Room Cleanliness and Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and well-repaired environment for its residents, as evidenced by observations and interviews during a survey. Three resident rooms were found to be in poor condition. Resident #12's room had a privacy curtain with multiple brown stains, indicating a lack of cleanliness. Despite the facility's policy for monthly deep cleaning, the curtain remained dirty, suggesting a failure in the cleaning process. Resident #12 was cognitively intact, as indicated by a BIMS score of 14. Resident #17's room had a broken closet door that had been off its track for a long time, and maintenance was aware of the issue. The resident, who was also cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15, reported that the door had not been repaired despite being used daily by staff. The facility's Angel Rounds, intended to identify such issues, failed to address this maintenance need, as confirmed by the Maintenance Director and the Administrator. Resident #28's room had dirty bed rails with brownish yellow and gray substances, which were observed on two separate occasions. The District Housekeeping Supervisor acknowledged that cleaning bed rails was part of the daily cleaning tasks, but the new housekeeping staff required retraining. Resident #28 had moderate cognitive deficits with a BIMS score of 10. The RN Unit Manager and LPN confirmed the bed rails' condition, highlighting a lapse in the facility's cleaning responsibilities.
Failure to Implement Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident's Personal Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan related to personal hygiene for a resident with severe cognitive deficits and a history of cerebrovascular accident with left-sided hemiparesis. The care plan, initiated on 2/27/24, indicated that the resident required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) due to dysphagia and hemiparesis. However, observations on 9/3/24 and 9/4/24 revealed that the resident was wearing the same short-sleeved shirt with visible dried substances, indicating a lack of personal hygiene care. Interviews with facility staff, including a CNA and the MDS Coordinator, confirmed that the resident was supposed to receive hygiene care as per the care plan. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged that the care plan was not followed, resulting in the resident not receiving the necessary assistance with ADLs. The resident's admission record and MDS assessment further highlighted the need for assistance with personal care due to severe cognitive deficits and physical limitations.
Failure to Provide Adequate ADL Care for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for a resident who was dependent on staff for assistance. Observations revealed that the resident, who was on hospice services and had severe cognitive deficits, was left in the same dirty shirt for over a day. The shirt had visible stains, including a white crusty substance and a dried brown substance, which were identified as food by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Despite being in and out of the resident's room, both the CNA and a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) failed to notice or address the resident's unchanged and soiled clothing. Interviews with the staff, including the CNA, LPN, and a Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager, confirmed that the resident's care was neglected. The CNA admitted to not noticing the dirty shirt, while the LPN acknowledged that the resident's clothes should have been changed daily, regardless of the hospice schedule. The RN Unit Manager also admitted to not checking the shower book to ensure the resident received proper ADL care. The resident's medical records indicated a need for assistance with personal care due to conditions such as cerebral infarction with hemiplegia and hemiparesis, further emphasizing the necessity for attentive care.
Facility Fails to Provide Properly Fitting Wheelchair for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a properly fitting wheelchair for a resident, leading to a deficiency in accommodating the resident's needs and preferences. The resident, who was admitted with an unspecified fracture of the left femur, was observed sitting in a wheelchair with her feet dangling and not touching the floor. This made it difficult for her to propel herself throughout the facility, which was her primary method of mobility. Interviews with the resident and staff, including a CNA and an RN, confirmed that the wheelchair was too tall for the resident, hindering her ability to self-propel safely. Further investigation revealed that the facility did not have a policy related to resident equipment, including wheelchairs. The Occupational Therapist stated that wheelchairs are typically selected from available options within the facility and are not customized to fit individual residents. The Administrator acknowledged that the resident should have a properly fitting wheelchair to meet her needs. The resident was cognitively intact, as indicated by a BIMS score of 14 on the Minimum Data Set assessment.
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 8 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 Oxford
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yalobusha County Nursing Home | 16.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Sardis Community Nh | 22.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Diversicare Of Batesville | 23.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Bruce Community Living Center | 25.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| Union Co Health And Rehab Center, Inc | 29.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Oxford Health & Rehab 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.