Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around June 2027
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 Pruitthealth-elkin during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Failure to assess two cognitively intact residents for self-administration of bedside medications. One resident with dry eye syndrome had unlabeled lubricating eye drops in the room and no order or assessment for self-administration, while another resident with osteoarthritis had unlabeled menthol pain-relieving gel left at the bedside after medication administration, also without a self-administration order or assessment.
Staff failed to follow infection control precautions during resident care. An RN changed a resident’s catheter urine collection bag while wearing gloves but no gown, despite the resident being on EBP for an indwelling urinary catheter. In another instance, two NAs provided incontinence care and a shower to a resident with VRE in the urine, and an RN performed wound care, all while wearing gloves but no gown even though Contact Precautions signage on the door required both gloves and gowns for those care activities.
Two residents with serious mental disorders, including bipolar disorder, were not referred for required PASRR assessments upon admission. Facility staff were unclear about the PASRR process, resulting in missed or delayed screenings, and there was no documentation of appropriate referrals for these residents.
A resident diagnosed with acute hepatitis B returned to the facility, but effective precautions to prevent transmission were not immediately implemented. Despite recommendations from health authorities, the facility continued using shared glucometers for glucose monitoring, delaying the switch to individual devices due to logistical concerns. This deficiency was compounded by poor communication among staff and health officials, leading to the facility being placed in outbreak status.
The facility failed to post the contact information for the State Survey Agency and a statement that residents may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency in an accessible area. During a Resident Council meeting, two residents were unsure if the contact information included the State Survey Agency. A tour with the Administrator confirmed the information was not posted, and the Administrator acknowledged recent updates to the board.
Failure to Assess Residents for Self-Administration of Bedside Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assess residents for self-administration of medications when over-the-counter products were found at the bedside of two residents. One resident was admitted with dry eye syndrome, was cognitively intact on the quarterly MDS, and had a bottle of carboxymethylcellulose sodium 0.5% lubricating eye drops sitting on the bedside table without a prescription label. Her chart did not show an order for self-administration of medications, an order for the eye drops, or an assessment for self-administration. She told staff she had been using the eye drops daily for several months after returning from leave, and the Wound Care Nurse removed the drops from the room after they were discovered. The second resident was admitted with pain disorder with related psychological factors and osteoarthritis, was cognitively intact on the quarterly MDS, and had an order for medicated topical pain-relieving gel to be applied to the left knee three times daily. A bottle of menthol gel 4% was observed on the bedside table without a prescription label, and the resident stated a nurse had left it in the room that morning after giving medications. The chart did not show an assessment for self-administration or an order allowing the resident to self-administer medications. The Wound Care Nurse removed the gel from the room, and the DON and physician stated that residents should not keep medications in their rooms without the appropriate order and assessment.
Failure to Follow EBP and Contact Precautions During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its infection prevention and control policies for Enhanced Barrier Precautions and Contact Precautions during resident care. A review of the facility policy stated that Enhanced Barrier Precautions require targeted gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities for residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices, including urinary catheters. During observation, Nurse #4 was seen wearing gloves while changing out Resident #1’s catheter urine collection bag, but he did not wear a gown. After leaving the room, he stated he did not realize a gown was needed for that task, then acknowledged he should have worn one because the resident was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. The facility also failed to follow Contact Precautions for Resident #76, who had a care plan for VRE in the urine and a door sign indicating Contact Precautions. The sign instructed staff to wear gloves and a gown for entering the room and for care activities including bathing, incontinence care, and wound care. During observation, NA #11 exited the resident’s room and entered the shower room without gloves or a gown while carrying the resident’s clothes. Later, NA #11 and NA #10 provided incontinence care and a shower while wearing gloves but no gown. NA #10 stated she should have worn a gown but was not aware the resident was on Transmission-Based Precautions, and NA #11 stated she did not pay attention to the signage and knew she should have worn both gloves and a gown. Nurse #13 then performed wound care on Resident #76’s left arm in the shower room while wearing gloves but no gown. She stated she was not aware the resident was on Contact Precautions, did not see the signage before entering the shower room, and did not receive report that the resident was on precautions. The DON confirmed the resident was on Contact Precautions for an active MDRO infection in the urine and that gown and gloves were required for staff during room entry and care activities. The Administrator also stated the staff should have worn both a gown and gloves and that the infection control measures were intended to prevent spread of infections within the facility.
Failure to Refer Residents with Serious Mental Disorders for PASRR Screening
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to refer residents with serious mental disorders to the state's mental health authority for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessments upon admission, as required. For one resident with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, records showed no referral for PASRR screening at the time of admission, despite the resident being cognitively intact and receiving antipsychotic medication. Interviews with staff revealed confusion regarding the PASRR process, with the MDS nurse indicating that the resident's PASRR level was changed following the resident's request, and the administrator acknowledging the lack of documentation for a PASRR referral at admission. Another resident admitted with diagnoses including bipolar disorder and anxiety was also not referred for an updated PASRR screening upon admission. The PASRR Level I Determination Notification sent from the hospital did not indicate the need for a Level II screening, and the facility's financial counselor was unaware of the resident's mental health diagnosis requiring further screening. The MDS nurse stated she had not submitted a PASRR screen for this resident, waiting instead for previous medical records, and the administrator confirmed that an updated PASRR screening should have been completed at admission.
Failure to Implement Effective Infection Control Measures for Hepatitis B
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement effective precautions to prevent the transmission of bloodborne pathogens, specifically acute hepatitis B, following the readmission of a resident diagnosed with the infection. The resident, who had been in the facility since June 2023, was readmitted from the hospital with a diagnosis of acute hepatitis B. Despite the diagnosis, the facility did not immediately implement individual glucometers for residents requiring glucose monitoring, which was a key recommendation from health department representatives to prevent further transmission. The deficiency was exacerbated by the facility's reliance on shared glucometers, which were disinfected between uses but not individualized for each resident. This practice continued despite recommendations from both local and state health department representatives to switch to individual glucometers. The facility's administration initially resisted this change due to the perceived logistical burden of conducting quality control checks on multiple glucometers each night. The situation was further complicated by a lack of communication and coordination among the facility's staff and external health authorities. The facility's medical director and attending physician were not fully informed or involved in the decision-making process regarding infection control measures. This lack of communication contributed to the delay in implementing necessary precautions, ultimately leading to the facility being placed in outbreak status for hepatitis B.
Failure to Post State Survey Agency Contact Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to post the contact information for the State Survey Agency and a statement that residents may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency in an area accessible to residents and their representatives. This deficiency was observed during tours of the facility on two separate days. During a Resident Council group meeting, two residents mentioned seeing some contact numbers on a board but were unsure if it included the State Survey Agency. A subsequent tour with the Administrator confirmed that the required information was not posted on the board, and the Administrator acknowledged that the facility had recently updated the board, removing old information and replacing it with new information. The Administrator stated that all staff were responsible for maintaining the board where pertinent information was posted for 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 41 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 1 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 Elkin
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chatham Nursing & Rehabilitation | 3.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| Yadkin Nursing And Care Center | 12.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Willowbrook Rehabilitation And Care | 13.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Wilkes Regional Medical Ctr Sn | 19.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Central Continuing Care | 19.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Pruitthealth-elkin.
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.