Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around January 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 The Laurels Of Salisbury during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with bilateral hydronephrosis, ureteral stents, and a suprapubic catheter was discharged from the hospital with instructions for urology follow‑up after upsizing the catheter. After admission, the catheter was upsized and the resident developed leakage around the suprapubic site and penis, along with purulent drainage and infection, leading an NP to order a urology consult "as soon as possible" and start clindamycin. Although the antibiotic was administered, facility records showed no evidence that the urology appointment was ever scheduled. The scheduler reported not receiving the order, the NP believed the scheduler had arranged the visit, a NA observed frequent leakage but did not report it to the nurse, and the urology clinic confirmed the resident had never been seen and still required follow‑up, while leadership acknowledged the appointment should have been made per physician order.
The facility was cited for deficiencies in its dietary department, including staff with facial hair not wearing beard covers and the lack of test strips to monitor chemical levels in the sanitizing sink. Observations showed that dietary staff were unaware of the beard cover requirement, and the facility ran out of test strips, leading to unmonitored chemical levels over a weekend.
A resident with heart and respiratory failure was mistakenly given Buspirone, intended for another resident, due to a nurse being distracted while training a medication aide. The resident, who was severely cognitively impaired, was monitored for 12 hours with no adverse reactions observed. The error was reported immediately, and the involved nurse received education on medication administration.
A facility failed to complete an admission MDS assessment within 14 days for a resident. The MDS nurse noticed the oversight and initiated the assessment but was unsure why it was missed. The Administrator, who was unaware of the missed assessment, stated that new admissions were discussed in meetings and monitored twice weekly, expecting timely completion.
The facility failed to accurately report nurse staffing on three out of five reviewed daily sheets. Discrepancies were found between posted sheets and actual schedules, with incorrect numbers of RNs, NAs, and LPNs reported. The Scheduler did not make corrections, and the Administrator was unaware of these inaccuracies.
Failure to Schedule Ordered Urology Follow-Up for Resident With Suprapubic Catheter
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to schedule a urology follow‑up appointment as ordered for a resident with a suprapubic catheter and active urinary issues. The resident had been hospitalized for bilateral hydronephrosis with ureteral stents and had a suprapubic catheter placed, with hospital urology documentation indicating the need for stent changes in 4–6 months and upsizing the suprapubic catheter from 14 French to 16 French. After admission, the resident’s care plan identified risk for UTIs related to the suprapubic catheter and urinary obstruction, and a subsequent radiology note documented successful upsizing of the suprapubic catheter. The resident was cognitively intact and admitted with an indwelling (suprapubic) catheter. Following the upsizing procedure, the NP documented ongoing problems, including leakage around the suprapubic site and from the penis, and purulent drainage at the catheter site. On a later visit, the NP assessed infection and inflammatory reaction due to the suprapubic catheter, started clindamycin, and wrote a physician order for a urology consultation to be scheduled as soon as possible. The order was transcribed and signed by a nurse, and the resident received the prescribed antibiotic as confirmed by MAR review and staff interview. However, record review from the date of the order through the survey date showed no documentation that a urology consultation was ever scheduled. Interviews revealed multiple communication and process failures that contributed to the missed appointment. The scheduler stated she was unaware of the urology consult order and had not received it from nursing, and she did not recall any discussion with the NP about the appointment. The NP reported she had spoken directly with the scheduler and assumed the appointment had been made, and later expressed concern that the resident had not had a urology follow‑up. A NA reported frequent leakage requiring incontinent care but did not report these concerns to the charge nurse, believing staff were already aware. The urology clinic nurse confirmed the resident had not been seen in the office and stated a follow‑up visit should have been scheduled within 30 days after the suprapubic catheter upsizing and was still needed as soon as possible. The DON and Administrator both stated their expectation that physician orders, including the urology follow‑up, should have been carried out, and the Medical Director stated the appointment should have been escalated due to the leaking and infected suprapubic catheter area.
Deficiencies in Dietary Practices and Sanitation Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility was found to have deficiencies in its dietary department, specifically related to the lack of beard covers for staff with facial hair and the absence of test strips to monitor chemical levels in the sanitizing sink. During observations, two dietary staff members, a cook and a dietary aide, were seen preparing and serving food without beard covers, despite having facial hair. The dietary manager and registered dietitian were unaware of the requirement for beard covers, and the dietary manager acknowledged the need to reorder them. The administrator confirmed that all dietary staff with facial hair should wear beard covers. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain necessary supplies to test the chemical levels in the three-compartment sink, which is crucial for ensuring proper sanitation. Observations revealed that the facility had run out of test strips over the weekend, and the dietary manager was not informed until the following Tuesday. As a result, the chemical levels were not checked during this period. The registered dietitian noted that while the chemical supply company monitors the levels 2-3 times per month, daily monitoring by dietary staff is required. The administrator expected the kitchen to keep test strips in stock.
Medication Error Due to Distraction During Training
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received medications as ordered by the physician, resulting in a medication error. A resident, who was admitted with diagnoses of heart failure and respiratory failure, was administered Buspirone, an antianxiety medication, which was intended for another resident. This error occurred because a nurse was distracted while training a medication aide during the medication pass. The resident in question was severely cognitively impaired and did not have an order for antianxiety medications. The error was documented in a Nurse's Progress Note, which indicated that the Nurse Practitioner was notified, and orders were given to monitor the resident for 12 hours. The resident's vital signs were stable, and no adverse reactions were observed following the administration of the incorrect medication. Interviews with the involved nurse and the Nurse Practitioner confirmed the occurrence of the medication error. The nurse did not recall the specific incident but acknowledged receiving in-service education on medication administration. The Nurse Practitioner confirmed that the error was reported immediately and that the resident was monitored as instructed, with no issues arising from the error. The facility's Administrator acknowledged that the nurse should not have been disrupted during medication administration, which contributed to the error.
Failure to Complete Admission MDS Assessment Timely
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days of admission for one resident. The resident was admitted to the facility, and the admission MDS was noted as in progress but not completed by the required timeframe. During an interview, the MDS nurse acknowledged that she noticed the admission assessment had not been completed and initiated it, but she was unsure why it was missed. The Administrator, who was interviewed later, stated that new admissions were discussed in morning meetings and checks were conducted twice weekly to monitor MDS completion. However, the Administrator was unaware that the admission MDS for this resident had been missed and expected it to be completed within the 14-day requirement.
Inaccurate Nurse Staffing Reports
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately report nurse staffing information on three out of five reviewed daily posted sheets. On 10/1/24, the posted sheet indicated that one RN and five NAs were scheduled for the night shift, but the actual schedule showed no RN and only three NAs worked. On 10/10/24, discrepancies were found in the day, evening, and night shifts, with the posted sheets showing different numbers of NAs than those who actually worked. On 12/4/24, the posted sheet indicated one LPN for the afternoon shift, while the schedule showed two LPNs worked. The Scheduler, responsible for updating the sheets during the day and afternoon, admitted to not making corrections, while the charge nurse was responsible for night updates. The Administrator was unaware of these inaccuracies, which led to the deficiency in accurately reflecting facility staffing.
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 172 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 4 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 Salisbury
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salisbury Rehabilitation And Nursing Center | 1.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 17 | 1 |
| Piedmont Health & Rehab Center | 3.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 1 |
| Trinity Oaks | 4 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Compass Healthcare And Rehab Rowan, Llc | 4.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Liberty Commons Nsg And Rehab Ctr Of Rowan County | 4.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for The Laurels Of Salisbury.
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.