Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around November 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 Atlas Rehabilitation And Healthcare At Maywood during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Food storage and kitchen sanitation deficiencies were identified after staff observed wet nesting pans, dented cans in dry storage, and improper handling of nourishment room foods. An LPN and the FSD confirmed that a freezer had heavy ice buildup, that resident food items were unlabeled and undated, and that an open condiment was expired and should not have been stored there.
A facility failed to properly oversee and document grievances raised during resident council meetings. Concerns about beds, wheelchairs, sliding board use, meal timing, urinal emptying, wheelchair brakes, and missing door handles were not consistently identified, tracked, or resolved in the records, and written grievance decisions were not issued with the required details. The LNHA, DON, DoA, and DoM gave inconsistent explanations, and the grievance binder and response forms were incomplete or missing.
The facility failed to complete comprehensive MDS assessments within the required 14-day admission timeframe for multiple residents. The RN/MDSC acknowledged the assessments were completed late and stated she was responsible for ensuring completion and accuracy. The LNHA also acknowledged the late completion, and the facility policies cited the same OBRA timeframe for admission assessments.
Failure to Notify LTCO of Hospital Transfer: A resident was transferred to the hospital, but the facility did not have the written notice of transfer in the record or emergency transfer binder, and the resident was not included on the monthly log sent to the LTCO. The DoSS stated the notice was mailed to the family, but the LTCO was not notified because the resident was not written on the log.
A resident with critical illness myopathy, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and GI hemorrhage was transferred to the hospital, but the facility did not complete a required DRAMDS for the transfer. The MDSC confirmed the omission and stated the discharge MDS should have been done; the LNHA later stated it was completed only after surveyor inquiry.
A resident with CHF and moderate cognitive impairment had a physician order for daily morning weights, but the record showed multiple instances where nurses signed the weight task as completed without entering a weight or documenting refusal. Although some refusals were noted in progress notes, other dates had no weight or refusal documented, and there was no evidence the physician was notified when the resident refused weights. Staff interviews confirmed the expected process was to document refusals in the EMR/eMAR and notify the physician.
Failure to provide incontinence care for a dependent resident. A resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, and total dependence for toileting hygiene was observed in bed with a brief soaked in urine and a strong urine odor. An LPN/UM confirmed the brief was wet and changed it without wiping or performing incontinence care. CNA and RN interviews, along with inconsistent CNA task documentation, showed the resident had not received the expected continence care across shifts.
A facility failed to document and report missed meds for a resident with ESRD, seizures, AFib, and cardiovascular disease when several ordered meds were not given and the physician was not notified in the chart. The facility also failed to accurately document a resident’s right heel wound and skin findings, as the EMR lacked clear nursing documentation showing when the wound was identified, despite wound care orders and consultant evaluation.
A resident with diabetes, LAKA, and documented pressure ulcers had a right heel wound that was present on admission, but the admission record did not document it and there was no wound treatment order in place initially. Nursing notes did not show treatment or physician follow-up, the eTAR had blank and unsigned entries, and the podiatry note did not include wound treatment recommendations. The wound consultant later identified the heel wound as diabetic with exposed bone and recommended imaging and vascular follow-up, while the DON stated staff had applied a dry dressing without documenting it and no treatment order had been obtained.
A resident with ESRD, diabetes, and bilateral AKA had incomplete dialysis communication records after returning from offsite HD. The DCR lacked documentation from the dialysis center nurse and had blank facility receiving-nurse sections on multiple treatment days. The LPN/UM said the form should be completed by facility staff and the RN stated he was unaware the record had to be fully completed and that he was sometimes not notified when the resident returned from HD.
A resident with HTN, orthostatic hypotension, and lung cancer had a delayed CP MRR and medication administration irregularities involving metoprolol succinate and losartan. The eMAR showed doses not given when they should have been and one dose given when it should have been held, while the MRR also noted concerns about midodrine timing and the concurrent use of midodrine with losartan and metoprolol. The record did not show timely documentation of the pharmacist review or the medication irregularities before survey review.
Medication administration errors exceeded the 5% threshold when an RN made three errors during a observed med pass, resulting in a 10% error rate. The RN gave a multivitamin tablet instead of the ordered multivitamin-minerals tablet, selected docusate tablets instead of capsules, and administered glipizide while the resident was eating even though it was ordered 30 minutes before meals.
Uncovered refuse container and debris in dumpster area: Surveyors observed an open compactor containing cardboard, regular garbage, gloves, water bottles, and loose trash, along with animal feces on the landing near the opening. The FSD stated all facility garbage went into one compactor and that it had always been open, while the HD and MD confirmed the condition and the LNHA later observed the same sanitation issues.
Missing ABHR and kiosk disinfection at visitor entrance. Surveyors observed that the entrance area had no ABHR available for visitors and no disinfecting wipes near the kiosk used for sign-in. The Receptionist did not prompt hand hygiene, and the ADON/IP, DON, and LNHA gave inconsistent descriptions of how the kiosk was cleaned and where ABHR was kept. The ADON/IP confirmed the ABHR station was empty and there was no ABHR on the front desk or in the entrance area.
A facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program when a CNA did not wear the required PPE while performing catheter care for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions. Despite signage and a PPE cart being present, the CNA did not see them and proceeded without a gown, only using gloves. The resident had multiple sclerosis and obstructive uropathy, and the need for enhanced barrier precautions was documented in their care plan and physician's orders.
Food Storage and Kitchen Sanitation Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to handle potentially hazardous foods and maintain kitchen sanitation practices, and it failed to store and label food in a manner intended to prevent the spread of food borne illness. During the initial kitchen tour, two rectangular pans were observed wet nesting on the racks after the Main Cook stated they had been washed the prior night, and the Food Service Director confirmed the wet nesting. In the dry storage room, two cans of stewed tomatoes were observed dented on the side and one can of creamed corn had a dented lip; the Food Service Director stated that dented cans were not acceptable and that staff would be spoken to about the incident. In the 3rd floor nursing unit nourishment room, the refrigerator door displayed signage stating that all food must be dated and have the resident's name, that dated food would be discarded after 3 days, and that undated items would be thrown away. The freezer was observed at minus 10 F with thick ice accumulation on the entire bottom. Inside the nourishment room refrigerator/freezer were an unlabeled and undated American beef patty, four unlabeled and undated mini apple pies, and an open mustard bottle labeled with a resident's name but without an open date and with a best used by date of 7/2025. The LPN/UM stated the beef patty and pies should have been labeled with the resident's name and dated, and that the mustard should not have been there because it was expired. The FSD stated his staff checked temperatures and cleaned the refrigerator and freezer, that maintenance had previously unplugged and defrosted the freezer, and that nursing was responsible for labeling and dating food, while his department was responsible for bottle expiration dates.
Grievance concerns from resident council meetings were not tracked or documented
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor residents’ right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and failed to establish and follow a grievance process that tracked concerns through resolution. Surveyors reviewed resident council minutes for April, May, and June 2025 and found multiple voiced concerns involving maintenance, nursing care, and equipment issues, including requests to check beds and wheelchairs, concerns about being out of bed more often and staff use of a sliding board, late meal pickup, urinal emptying, wheelchair brakes, and missing handles on day room doors. The minutes did not identify the residents who raised the concerns, did not show that the concerns were filed as grievances, and did not document that residents were notified of or agreed with any resolution. The surveyor reviewed the grievance binder and found no documented evidence that the concerns from the resident council meetings were resolved or followed up. The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator could not initially identify the residents involved in the meeting concerns and was unable to provide supporting documentation when asked. The Director of Maintenance stated that resident council concerns were considered official only if a note was given, and acknowledged that documentation should exist for resolving grievances. The Director of Activities stated she was responsible for documenting resident concerns, emailing them to department heads, tracking responses, and maintaining a binder, but the records shown were incomplete and inconsistent with the meeting minutes. For one meeting, a Resident Council Response Form indicated that maintenance issues were resolved, but it did not identify the resident or specify what was fixed, and the resident named by the Director of Activities did not attend that meeting. For another meeting, the maintenance response form was blank, and there was no response form for the concerns about wheelchair brakes, meals, or urinal care. A resident who attended the council meeting stated that the urinal concern was not formally resolved to them, although staff later became more prompt. The facility also did not provide written grievance decisions containing the required elements such as the date received, summary of the grievance, investigation steps, findings, confirmation status, corrective action, and date issued. The facility’s grievance policy stated that grievances would be responded to in writing, but the documentation reviewed did not reflect that process.
Late Completion of Comprehensive MDS Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete comprehensive MDS assessments within the required timeframe for 6 of 6 residents reviewed for comprehensive resident assessments. The report identified Residents #15, #17, #61, #74, #92, and #105, whose comprehensive MDS assessments were completed and signed after the 14-day admission deadline established in the RAI manual and the facility’s own policy. The assessments for these residents had ARDs in July 2025, but the completion dates were several days beyond the allowed period. During the survey, the RN/MDS coordinator stated that the comprehensive MDS should be completed one to two weeks after creation and submitted one to two weeks after completion, and acknowledged responsibility for ensuring completion and accuracy of the assessments. When the surveyor requested final validation reports for several residents, the RN/MDS coordinator provided a report dated 8/6/25 and acknowledged that the MDS assessments were completed late. She further stated that the comprehensive MDS should be completed by 14 days after admission, but also explained that if anything was pending or needed further review, the MDS might be late. The surveyor notified the LNHA, DON, and Regional Director of Clinical Services about the late completion of the assessments, and the LNHA acknowledged the MDS assessments were completed late. The facility’s Comprehensive Assessments Policy stated that admission assessments must be completed by the end of day 14, counting the admission date as day 1, and the Electronic Transmission of the MDS Policy stated that all MDS assessments are to be completed and transmitted in accordance with OBRA regulations.
Failure to Notify LTCO of Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a copy of the resident and the resident's representative's written notification of the reason for transfer to the hospital to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for one resident who was transferred to the hospital. Review of the resident's closed electronic medical record showed a discharge return anticipated MDS indicating the resident was transferred to the hospital, but the record did not include a written notification of the reason for transfer to the resident or resident representative, nor a copy sent to the LTCO for that transfer. During interview, the Director of Social Services stated that when nursing notifies her of a hospital transfer, she completes the Notice of Transfer or Discharge form, mails it to the family, keeps a copy in a binder, and updates a monthly log that is emailed to the ombudsman. However, the resident was not listed on the February 2025 log sent to the LTCO, and the resident's Notice of Transfer or Discharge form was not found in the emergency transfer binder. The Director of Social Services later confirmed that the resident was not listed on the log that went to the ombudsman and that the copy of the notice sent to the family was also not in the binder.
Late MDS Submission After Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to submit the MDS assessment in a timely manner for one resident who was transferred to the hospital. The resident’s record showed diagnoses including critical illness myopathy, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage. The UTF and progress note documented that the resident was transferred to the hospital on 5/20/25, but there was no additional note showing the resident returned to the facility. The resident’s last MDS was an interim payment assessment with an ARD of 5/14/25, and there was no Discharge Return Anticipated MDS (DRAMDS) with an ARD of 5/20/25 in the electronic medical record for the hospitalization. During interview, the MDSC stated that when a resident is transferred to the hospital, she reviews the progress notes and enters a discharge MDS, with the type depending on insurance. She later stated that a discharge MDS would be opened the next day after hospitalization, completed within 14 days of opening, and submitted within 14 days of completion. The MDSC confirmed that the resident did not have a DRAMDS and that it should have been completed. After the surveyor notified the LNHA, DON, and RDoCS of the concern, the LNHA stated that the MDSC completed the resident’s DRAMDS after surveyor inquiry.
Failure to Document Daily Weight Refusals and Notify Physician
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to consistently document a resident’s refusal of daily weights and failed to notify the physician when the resident refused weights. Resident #77 had diagnoses including heart failure, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, visual loss, atrial fibrillation, and vertebra fracture. The resident’s MDS reflected a BIMS score of 12 out of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. A physician’s order dated 7/16/25 directed daily morning weights for CHF, and the record showed only two documented weights, 7/17/25 at 208.5 lbs. and 8/4/25 at 206 lbs. Review of the July and August 2025 eTAR showed nurses signed daily weights as completed on multiple dates, including several dates where no weight was entered in the record. The progress notes documented refusals on some dates, but there was no documentation of a weight or refusal on other dates when the eTAR was signed as completed. There was also no documentation that the physician was notified about the resident’s refusals to be weighed. During interviews, the CNA, LPNs, RN/UM, and DON all stated that daily weights were to be documented in the EMR/eMAR and that refusals were to be documented, with the physician notified when a resident refused. The RN/UM and DON acknowledged that staff had signed the daily weight as completed even though the resident had refused, and that the physician had not been notified. The facility policy stated that resident weights are monitored and recorded in the medical record.
Failure to Provide Incontinence Care for a Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate ADL care for a resident who was dependent on staff for incontinence care. During observation, the resident was found lying in bed with a wet incontinence brief that was soaked with urine and had a strong urine odor. The Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager observed the condition of the brief, changed it, and confirmed that the resident should have been changed and that the odor was urine, but the brief was changed without wiping or performing incontinence care. The resident involved had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, schizoaffective disorder, peripheral vascular disease, and vascular dementia. The resident's BIMS score was 3 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition, and the MDS documented that the resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The record also showed the resident was dependent for toileting hygiene, and the care plan stated the resident was totally dependent on staff for toilet use. Interviews with CNAs and the RN indicated that the resident had been assigned to a CNA, but the CNA stated she had not been able to check the resident for wetness or provide incontinence and morning care since the start of the shift. The RN stated the resident was cognitively impaired and compliant with care, with no reports of refusal. Review of CNA task documentation showed that bladder continence entries were inconsistent, with some days showing only one or two entries instead of three entries for the three shifts, and the LPN/UM acknowledged that three entries should have been documented to show continence care was provided each shift.
Missed Medication Documentation and Incomplete Wound Assessment Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that medications were administered, documented, and communicated to the physician in accordance with orders for one resident who had diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, bilateral above-the-knee amputations, seizures, and end-stage renal disease. The resident’s orders included nifedipine ER, hydralazine, isosorbide mononitrate ER, apixaban, and ticagrelor. The August 2025 eMAR showed these medications were coded as not administered on 8/2/25 because the resident was absent from home, and the record contained no documented evidence that the physician was notified that the medications were not given. During interview, nursing staff stated that when medications are not administered, the nurse should notify the UM and physician and document the missed medications and the physician’s plan in the PN. The surveyor also observed that the resident was later present in the facility in a wheelchair with bilateral above-the-knee amputation. The facility’s records showed that the missed medications were later addressed only after surveyor inquiry, but the deficiency was based on the lack of timely documentation and physician notification for the missed doses. The facility also failed to ensure accurate documentation of wound assessment and skin impairment for another resident with multiple sclerosis, PVD, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and osteoarthritis. The resident’s MDS identified an unhealed stage 3 pressure ulcer and a venous/arterial ulcer, and a wound order directed daily treatment to the sacrum. Review of records showed a right heel wound was evaluated by the wound consultant as an arterial ulcer measuring 1.0 cm by 1.0 cm by 0.2 cm, but the chart contained no documentation in the admission assessment, progress notes, or weekly skin checks showing when the heel wound was first identified. The wound consultant later stated the heel wound was newly opened and believed it was an old wound site that had reopened, while nursing staff stated new wounds should be documented in the EMR with a description and physician notification.
Failure to Document and Provide Timely Treatment for a Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevention for a resident with diabetes, a left above-the-knee amputation, hypertension, and muscle weakness who was cognitively intact. The resident’s records showed a stage 2 and a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the comprehensive MDS, and the care plan addressed actual skin breakdown involving the sacrum, LAKA surgical site, and right heel. A wound consultant later evaluated the right heel wound and described it as a diabetic right heel wound with exposed bone, recommending an x-ray to rule out osteomyelitis, a vascular consult, and specific wound treatment orders. The admission assessment did not document a right heel wound, while the second-day skin evaluation documented a right heel pressure ulcer and sacral pressure ulcer, with the right toe listed as a site but without a description. The June eTAR contained no treatment orders for the right heel wound, and the physician’s orders showed no wound treatment order for the right heel from admission through 7/1/25. A later order directed cleansing with Vashe, application of Vashe-soaked gauze, ABD pad, and kerlix dressing daily and as needed, with heel offloading, but the July eTAR had blank and unsigned entries for the treatment on two dates. There was no nursing documentation showing treatment of the right heel wound or follow-up with the physician between admission and 7/1/25, and the podiatry note from 7/1/25 did not include a wound treatment recommendation. The wound consultant stated the wound had been present on admission and that she first evaluated it on 7/17/25; the podiatrist confirmed the resident had a right heel wound present before admission but did not provide treatment recommendations and stated the wound care team was following the resident. The DON later stated staff assessed the heel wound on admission, applied a dry dressing without documenting it, and that no treatment order was obtained despite the wound consultant order being entered.
Incomplete Monitoring and Documentation for a Resident Returning From Hemodialysis
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate routine monitoring and documentation for a resident receiving offsite hemodialysis. Resident #4 was admitted with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus with advanced diabetic retinopathy, bilateral above-knee amputations, and seizures. The most recent quarterly MDS reflected intact cognition with a BIMS score of 15, and the resident was ordered to receive hemodialysis on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday with an early morning chair time and pickup time. During review of the resident’s dialysis binder, the Dialysis Communication Record was found to be incomplete for multiple hemodialysis dates. The sections that were to be completed by the dialysis center nurse were missing documentation, and the bottom portion for the facility receiving nurse was blank for several dates. The surveyor also reviewed the medical record and found no completed communication documentation for the resident’s return from dialysis on those dates. The LPN/UM stated that the top and bottom portions of the Dialysis Communication Record should be completed by the facility nurse and that if the middle portion was blank, the nurse should call the dialysis center. The RN stated he was unaware that the record had to be filled out completely and said that at times no one notified him when the resident returned from hemodialysis, which explained the missing documentation on the days he worked. The facility’s hemodialysis policy stated that the nurse will monitor and document the resident’s access site upon return from dialysis to observe for bleeding or other complications.
Delayed Pharmacist MRR and Unaddressed Medication Administration Irregularities
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to act on the Consultant Pharmacist’s Medication Regimen Review in a timely manner for one resident. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including essential hypertension and malignant carcinoma of the lung, and was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. The resident’s August 2025 eMAR showed orders for midodrine 10 mg every 8 hours for orthostatic hypotension, metoprolol succinate ER 100 mg twice daily for HTN with hold parameters for SBP below 100 mmHg or HR below 60, and losartan 25 mg daily for HTN with a hold parameter for SBP below 100 mmHg. The eMAR also showed medication administration irregularities. Metoprolol succinate was not given at 9 AM on 8/3 when the BP was 103 and should have been given, was given at 9 PM on 8/3 when the BP was 94 and should have been held, and was not given at 9 PM on 8/5 when the BP was 107 and should have been given. Losartan was also not given at 9 AM on 8/3 when the BP was 103 and should have been given. The resident’s progress notes did not show documentation of a pharmacist MRR or medication irregularities or changes before the survey review. The electronic MRR dated 8/4 listed recommendations for nursing, including reviewing metoprolol administration times, noting medication errors with metoprolol hold parameters, and not administering midodrine after the evening meal or within four hours of bedtime. It also included a recommendation for the attending physician to review the concurrent use of losartan and metoprolol succinate with midodrine due to opposing effects and to clarify the indications and continued use of all three medications. The facility’s paper chart showed the CP reviewed the resident’s record in person on 8/7 and documented that an eMRR had been done on 3/4/25, while the unit manager stated the recommendations were addressed as soon as possible and that the admission request had been sent to the wrong company, causing delay.
Medication Administration Errors Exceeded 5 Percent
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that medications were administered without error at a rate of 5% or greater. During observation of medication administration for four residents, two nurses had 30 opportunities for error and three errors were observed, resulting in a 10% medication administration error rate. The deficient practice was identified for two residents during one nurse’s medication pass. For one resident, the RN prepared and administered a multivitamin order, but selected a bottle labeled multivitamin tablets instead of the ordered multivitamin-minerals tablets. For another resident, the RN selected and administered docusate sodium 100 mg tablets even though the active order was for docusate capsules, and also administered glipizide while the resident was eating breakfast even though the order directed that it be given 30 minutes before meals. When questioned, the RN acknowledged the mismatches between the medication labels and the orders and stated the diabetic medication should have been given before meals.
Uncovered refuse container and debris in dumpster area
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a sanitary refuse area by leaving the garbage container uncovered and by allowing garbage and debris to remain around the dumpster/compactor area. During the tour of the loading dock and refuse area, the surveyor and the Food Service Director observed an uncovered compactor that contained cardboard boxes and regular garbage, along with gloves, water bottles, and loose trash inside the bottom floor of the compactor. The surveyor also observed five spots of animal feces on the landing area near the opening of the compactor. The Food Service Director stated that all facility garbage was placed into one compactor, that it had always been open, and that it could not be closed because of the metal part. The Housekeeping Director and Maintenance Director confirmed the open compactor and garbage around the area, and the Maintenance Director stated the compactor did not close and was designed that way. The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator later observed and confirmed the open compactor and the animal feces on the landing area.
Missing ABHR and kiosk disinfection at visitor entrance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain infection control practices by not ensuring Alcohol Based Hand Rub (ABHR) was available at the entrance for visitors and by not providing disinfecting wipes to clean the kiosk between uses. Surveyors observed that when they entered the facility on 8/5/25 and 8/6/25, there was no ABHR in the front entrance area or near the kiosk used for visitor sign-in, and there were no disinfecting wipes available to clean the kiosk after use. On 8/6/25, the surveyor used their own ABHR before and after signing in on the kiosk, and the Receptionist did not encourage hand hygiene. During interview, the ADON/IP stated that visitors should be encouraged to use ABHR and that there was an ABHR station at the kiosk entrance, but he later confirmed the station was empty and that there was no bottle of ABHR on the front desk or anywhere in the entrance area. The Receptionist also confirmed there was no ABHR at the front desk or entrance. The ADON/IP retrieved a bottle of ABHR from his office and placed it on the front desk. The LNHA stated she did not have a specific policy related to the kiosk. The Receptionist stated she did not do anything with the kiosk other than tell visitors to sign in, and she thought housekeeping may clean it. The ADON/IP stated the kiosk should be cleaned between uses and that he would place wipes there. The DON stated the kiosk was a high-touch area and that she had to check regarding cleaning. The LNHA later stated the kiosk was part of the housekeeping routine cleaning and was wiped at the beginning of the day, but no disinfecting wipes were observed in the entrance area during the survey.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions. During an observation, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not wear the required personal protective equipment (PPE) while performing catheter care for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. Despite signage and a PPE cart being present outside the resident's room, the CNA did not see them and proceeded without wearing a gown, only using gloves. This was confirmed during an interview with the CNA at the time of the observation. The resident involved had multiple sclerosis and obstructive uropathy, and was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident's care plan and physician's orders indicated the need for enhanced barrier precautions, including the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact activities. The facility's Director of Nursing and Infection Preventionist confirmed the requirement for enhanced barrier precautions for residents with indwelling urinary catheters and other specified conditions. Staff training on enhanced barrier precautions had been conducted, and the CNA involved had attended this training.
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 1,587 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 22 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 Maywood
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaris Health At The Chateau | 0.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Prospect Heights Llc | 0.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 21 | 0 |
| Careone At Wellington | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Regent Llc | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Careone At New Milford | 2.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Atlas Rehabilitation And Healthcare At Maywood.
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.