Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around September 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 Life Care Center Of South Las Vegas during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with type one DM was admitted after a toe amputation, but the facility did not obtain a baseline BG, did not clarify hospital discharge notes about SSI and splitting long-acting insulin with the attending physician, and did not secure clear BG monitoring orders. When the resident later had a change in condition with abnormal VS and AMS, no BG was obtained before EMS transfer. The resident was hospitalized with severe hyperglycemia and DKA, and the facility confirmed it had no diabetes management protocol.
A resident with type 1 DM and a recent toe amputation had hospital discharge instructions that included considering sliding scale insulin and splitting long-acting insulin into BID dosing, but the attending physician did not document an independent review of those recommendations. The resident later developed a severe change in condition and was rehospitalized with acute encephalopathy likely metabolic in the setting of DKA and stress hyperglycemia, requiring an insulin drip, ICU care, and intubation before discharge to hospice.
Failure to follow Foley catheter orders and document catheter care. A resident with paraplegia, obstructive uropathy, urine retention, and an infected stage four sacral ulcer had an order for an 18 Fr Foley to straight drainage with catheter care every shift, but staff observed a 16 Fr Foley in place. The record lacked documentation of catheter exchange, a physician order for the 16 Fr catheter, and evidence that routine catheter care was provided; the DON confirmed the orders were not followed and documentation was missing.
A resident with cellulitis, polyneuropathy, and multiple lower-extremity wounds was discharged home with orders for home health OT, PT, and nursing for wound care, as well as a recommended two-wheeled walker, but the facility did not ensure that a home health agency had accepted the referral or that DME was arranged before discharge. Social services staff acknowledged that referrals for home health and DME were denied due to insurance network issues and that the facility’s practice was to discharge without waiting for acceptance, later advising residents to follow up with their PCP. After discharge, the resident reported having no walker, no home health contact, and unchanged wound dressings from the day of discharge, while the record lacked documentation of any discussion with the resident about the lack of home health acceptance or refusal to remain under private pay, despite a policy requiring discharge plans to meet health and safety needs and preferences.
The facility failed to provide and document scheduled showers for three residents who required assistance with bathing. A resident with mobility limitations and intact cognition, scheduled for twice-weekly showers, reported receiving only two showers and denied ever receiving bed baths or refusing one of the showers, despite documentation to the contrary. Another cognitively intact resident, also scheduled for twice-weekly showers, missed a scheduled shower with no documentation of refusal or re-offer. A third resident with moderately impaired cognition and total dependence on staff for showers reported not receiving a shower during a two-week stay, and records showed two missed scheduled showers, one related to a room change and another without a documented reason, with only a single bed bath recorded. Facility policy required residents to receive a full shower or bath at least twice weekly according to their needs and preferences.
A resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction had a physician order for a CT scan to rule out an ascending aortic aneurysm, but the exam was never completed. The Unit Manager entered the CT order into the medical record but did not complete the required appointment request form, so case management was not notified to schedule the test with an outside provider. The DON confirmed this missed CT scan was an oversight, contrary to the facility’s diagnostic services policy requiring timely coordination and completion of ordered diagnostic services.
The facility failed to secure medications in a central supply room, which was found propped open and accessible. Two unlocked medication carts containing various medications and supplements were observed. Staff confirmed the room should have been locked to prevent unauthorized access, as per facility policy.
A facility failed to document a nutritional assessment and food preferences for a resident admitted with lupus and mild kidney injury. Despite a physician's order for a regular diet, there was no record of food preferences. The Dietary Director indicated that dietary staff should document preferences within 24 hours, but this was not done. The facility's policy required a visit within 72 hours to obtain preferences and complete the nutrition assessment.
A resident with dementia and a history of cholecystectomy experienced a fall, and the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for fall management. Although a physical therapy consultation was suggested, it was not conducted, and the necessary screening and evaluation were delayed for seven weeks, contrary to the facility's policy.
A facility failed to provide scheduled showers to dependent residents, affecting three individuals with conditions such as dementia and hemiplegia. Despite care plans indicating the need for substantial assistance with bathing, there was no documentation of completed showers or refusals on scheduled dates. The facility's policy required assistance for activities of daily living, but this was not adhered to, resulting in a deficiency in hygiene care.
A resident was admitted with a urinary catheter without sufficient medical justification, as the diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) alone was not adequate for catheter placement. The resident's medical record lacked documentation of a bladder training program or justification for the catheter's use. The DON acknowledged the deficiency, noting that the facility's policy required a determined need and medical indication for catheter use, which was not met in this case.
A facility failed to follow a physician-ordered fluid restriction for a dialysis-dependent resident with end-stage renal disease and cardiac conditions. Despite a prescribed limit of 1000 ml per day, the resident had access to excess fluids, including a full water pitcher and other beverages. Staff were unaware of the restriction, and the care plan did not reflect it, leading to a lack of monitoring and documentation of fluid intake. The facility's policies required adherence to such orders, but these were not followed, posing a risk of fluid overload.
A facility failed to account for narcotics signed out for a resident, risking delayed pain management. The resident had a prescription for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen, but the narcotic log was missing for several months, and discrepancies were found between the log and the MAR. Staff interviews revealed that the expected procedure was not followed, leading to the deficiency.
A resident with end-stage renal disease and dependence on dialysis continued to receive Spironolactone, a contraindicated medication, despite a pharmacist's recommendation and physician's agreement to discontinue it. The medication administration record showed the medication was still active, and an LPN confirmed its administration. The DON explained the process for medication review, but the order was not discontinued, indicating a failure in the facility's process.
A facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below five percent, with an observed rate of 7.41%. During a medication pass, an LPN administered incorrect dosages to a resident with chronic kidney disease and neuropathy, failing to give the prescribed amount of Gabapentin and omitting Oxybutynin, despite it being documented as given. The DON confirmed the expectation for nurses to verify medication orders and adhere to the five rights of medication administration.
The facility failed to properly label and date stored foods, and did not adhere to appropriate storage practices, posing potential health risks. Observations revealed unlabeled and undated food items in the freezer and cooler, and employee drinks stored improperly. The facility's Food Safety guidelines were not followed.
The facility failed to ensure a safe discharge for two residents, leading to potential placement in inappropriate settings without necessary care. For one resident, there was no documentation of group home evaluation or family agreement, and key staff were uninvolved. Similarly, the second resident's discharge lacked documentation of family involvement and group home details, with key staff again uninvolved.
Failure to Obtain and Clarify Diabetes Orders and Monitor Blood Glucose
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate diabetes-related treatment and monitoring for a resident admitted with type one diabetes mellitus and a recent right toe amputation for gangrene. On admission, a baseline blood glucose level was not obtained, and the admitting nurse acknowledged this was an oversight. The medical record showed the first documented blood glucose check occurred the next morning and was 209 mg/dl. Staff interviews confirmed the facility expected baseline blood glucose testing for newly admitted residents with diabetes, but this was not completed for this resident. The resident’s hospital discharge summary included insulin glargine 50 units daily and a note to consider sliding scale insulin at the rehab facility and to consider splitting the long-acting insulin into twice-daily doses. The record did not show that these discharge recommendations were discussed or clarified with the attending physician, and there was no documented evidence that orders were obtained for blood glucose monitoring frequency or for an insulin sliding scale. Staff described differing practices for diabetic residents, including monitoring tied to insulin administration or at least twice daily, but the admitting nurse acknowledged not contacting the physician for clarification on the evening of admission. During a later change in condition, the resident developed abnormal vital signs and altered mental status, including bradycardia, cold hands, oxygen saturation of 82% on room air, deep rapid respirations, inability to speak due to shortness of breath, and lethargy. The record did not show a blood glucose level was obtained at that time. The resident was sent to the hospital by emergency services and was found to have severe hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, with blood glucose levels greater than 600 mg/dl and 807 mg/dl, requiring ICU-level care, intubation, and later hospice discharge. The facility also confirmed it did not have a diabetes management protocol and relied on physician orders.
Physician Did Not Review Hospital Diabetes Discharge Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the attending physician conducted an independent, thorough review of a hospital discharge summary for Resident 161, who was admitted with type 1 diabetes mellitus and a recent right third toe amputation due to gangrene. The hospital discharge medication reconciliation listed Insulin Glargine 50 units subcutaneously daily and included free-text notes to consider sliding scale insulin during rehab and to consider splitting the long-acting insulin into twice-daily dosing. The medical record did not contain documented evidence that these discharge recommendations were reviewed and addressed by the attending physician. On [DATE], the attending physician stated they expected admitting nurses to communicate the hospital’s insulin sliding scale recommendations and said they would have agreed to follow the hospital recommendations for sliding scale insulin and to divide the resident’s long-acting insulin into two administrations. The physician also stated they believed the facility protocol was to perform blood glucose checks at least three times a day for residents admitted with diabetes. Later, Resident 161 had a change in condition with bradycardia, cold hands, oxygen saturation of 82% on room air, deep rapid respirations, inability to speak due to catching breath, and lethargy, and was sent to the hospital. The hospital discharge summary from that admission stated the resident had acute encephalopathy likely metabolic in the setting of DKA and stress hyperglycemia, was started on an insulin drip and DKA protocol, moved to the ICU, intubated due to altered mentation and respiratory failure, and was discharged to hospice care.
Failure to Follow Foley Catheter Orders and Document Catheter Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow physician orders for an indwelling urinary catheter for a resident admitted with paraplegia, obstructive uropathy, and urine retention. The resident also had an infected stage four sacral pressure ulcer, and the catheter was ordered to straight drainage with an 18 French, 10 cc bulb catheter and catheter care every shift. During observation on 05/18/2026, a covered urinary bag was seen hanging on the right side of the bed while the resident was being turned for wound care. Record review and staff interviews showed the resident had a 16 French Foley catheter in place, although the order remained for an 18 French catheter. The Unit Manager stated there was no documentation that the Foley had been replaced since admission, and the resident said the catheter had been exchanged last week at the resident's request. The medical record lacked documentation of the resident's request, lacked a physician order for insertion of a 16 French catheter, and lacked documentation that catheter care was being provided every shift. The DON confirmed the orders were not followed and stated there was no documentation of catheter removal and insertion or routine catheter care.
Failure to Secure Home Health and DME Prior to Discharge for Resident With Wound Care Needs
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident’s discharge, including home health services and DME, was fully arranged and accepted prior to discharge, despite the resident’s need for ongoing wound care and assistive devices. The resident was admitted with cellulitis of the right lower limb and polyneuropathy and had chronic wounds on both lower extremities requiring specific dressing changes. A physician’s order authorized discharge home with current medications, required staff to provide medication education, and ordered home health services including OT, PT, and nursing for wound care evaluation and treatment, with detailed instructions for cleansing and dressing multiple wounds. A NOMNC was completed and signed with a specified service end date, and the discharge summary documented that the resident left with medications, belongings, and education on medications, accompanied by a family member. Interviews and record review showed that the facility’s discharge planning process did not ensure that a home health agency had accepted the referral before the resident left. The Social Services Director stated that case managers should verify acceptance of home health prior to discharge, but a Social Services Assistant (SSA) reported that the facility did not wait for home health acceptance and, if a resident was not accepted, the facility would later contact the resident and advise them to follow up with their PCP. The SSA further explained that on the day of discharge they received notification that the referral for home health and DME was not accepted due to insurance network issues, and that there was confusion between the insurance unit authorizing the facility stay and the unit responsible for home health, resulting in denials as out-of-network. The SSA acknowledged that best practice would have been to wait until a home health agency had accepted the resident before discharging and noted that the resident had been authorized for the facility stay and required discharge by the insurer. After discharge, the resident reported not receiving any DME, including a walker that had been expected, and no home health visits or contact. As of a later interview date, the resident still had wound dressings in place from the day of discharge and had not had a full shower due to concern about wetting the bandages. The resident stated that no one from the facility had called to check on their welfare or whether DME or home health had been provided, and that they were ambulating at home without a walker, holding onto walls and furniture. The insurance company informed the resident that any DME and home health services needed to be arranged through approved vendors and that such needs should have been addressed during IDT meetings. A PT discharge summary documented that home health services and a two-wheeled walker were recommended, and the wound care nurse stated that the resident should have been followed by an outpatient wound care provider and that complications could occur from missed dressing changes. The DON and SSA characterized the discharge as insurance-driven and stated that the resident was informed of private-pay options and expressed a desire to go home with wound services; however, the medical record lacked documentation of any conversation about the lack of home health acceptance or any documented refusal by the resident to remain at the facility under private pay. The facility’s discharge planning policy required that the discharge destination meet the resident’s health and safety needs and preferences, but the documented process and interviews showed that the resident was discharged without confirmed home health acceptance and without ensured provision of ordered wound care and DME.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Showers and Accurately Document Bathing Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure scheduled showers were provided for residents assessed as needing assistance with bathing, resulting in missed or undocumented showers for three of five sampled residents. One resident with intact cognition and mobility limitations requiring substantial/maximal assistance for bathing reported being told they were scheduled for showers twice weekly and stated they had only received two showers since admission. The shower schedule and ADL bathing documentation showed two showers on specific dates, refusals documented on two other dates, and several bed baths recorded; however, the resident denied ever receiving bed baths and denied refusing one of the documented showers. During an interview, the resident reiterated a strong preference for showers over bed baths and stated they would not refuse a shower, and the DON acknowledged that the resident’s account did not align with the medical record. Another cognitively intact resident requiring partial/moderate assistance with bathing reported missing showers. Review of the shower schedule and ADL bathing report showed this resident was scheduled for showers twice weekly but missed a scheduled shower with no documentation of refusal or re-offer, which the DON confirmed. A third resident with moderately impaired cognition and total dependence on staff for showers reported being in the facility for two weeks without receiving a shower. The shower schedule and ADL bathing report revealed this resident missed two scheduled showers, one associated with a room change and another with no documented reason, with only one bed bath documented between the missed showers. The facility’s ADL Service Assistance policy required that residents receive a full shower or bath according to their needs and preferences at least twice per week.
Failure to Complete Ordered CT Scan Due to Missed Scheduling Process
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to carry out a physician order for a CT scan for one resident. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side. A physician order dated 12/10/2026 directed that the resident receive a CT scan to exclude an ascending aortic aneurysm. Review of the medical record showed no documented evidence that the CT scan was ever completed for this resident. The Unit Manager stated that certain diagnostic procedures, such as X-rays, KUB, and EKG, could be done in the facility, while CT scans, MRI, and barium swallow tests had to be scheduled with an outside provider. The Unit Manager explained that after a physician order for a CT scan is obtained, a nurse is supposed to complete an appointment request form and give it to case management to schedule the procedure. The Unit Manager acknowledged personally entering the CT scan order into the medical record but forgetting to complete the appointment request form, so the order was never communicated to case management. The DON confirmed that the missed CT scan was an oversight. The facility’s Diagnostic Services policy stated the facility would ensure diagnostic services meet residents’ needs and that the facility would be responsible for the quality and timeliness of services, whether provided on-site or by an outside resource, with results reported timely to the ordering physician.
Unsecured Medication Storage in Central Supply Room
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the security of medications in one of its central supply rooms, which was observed to be unsecured. On the specified date, the central supply room door was found propped open with a dumbbell, allowing unauthorized access. Inside the room, two medication carts were found unlocked, with keys hanging from one of the cart locks. The carts contained various medications and nutritional supplements, including Vitamin C, Benadryl, Omeprazole, and Nexium, among others. An Occupational Therapy student was able to enter the room to retrieve supplies, indicating that the room was accessible to individuals who should not have had access. Interviews with facility staff, including an LPN and a Licensed Nurse, confirmed that the central supply room was supposed to remain locked to prevent unauthorized access to medications and supplies. The Director of Nursing also verified that the room contained over-the-counter medications and wound care supplies and emphasized the importance of keeping the room locked to prevent residents and family members from accessing the medications. The facility's policy on the storage of medications and biologicals, revised in August 2023, mandates that all medications be securely stored in locked compartments, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Failure to Document Nutritional Assessment and Food Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a nutritional assessment, including food preferences, within 72 hours of admission for one of the sampled residents. Resident 2, who was admitted with diagnoses including lupus and mild kidney injury, did not have documented nutritional assessment or food preferences in their medical record. A physician's order indicated a regular diet with regular texture and thin liquid consistency, but there was no documentation of food preferences. The Dietary Director stated that dietary staff should meet with newly admitted residents within 24 hours to obtain food preferences, which should be documented in the medical record. However, a staff member from medical records confirmed that Resident 2's medical record lacked this documentation. The facility's policy required the Director of Food and Nutrition Services, Registered Dietician, or designee to visit residents within 72 hours of admission to obtain food and beverage preferences and complete the electronic nutrition assessment.
Failure to Implement Comprehensive Fall Management Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for the management of falls for one resident, identified as Resident 50, who had a history of cholecystectomy and dementia. The resident experienced a fall on March 10, 2024, and the care plan was revised on the same day to address the fall, including goals and interventions. However, the care plan lacked implementation for monitoring and managing the resident's fall risk. A physical therapy consultation was suggested in the care plan to assess the resident's strength and mobility, but this was not carried out. The Director of Rehabilitation explained that when a therapy screening is suggested, it should be scheduled and completed promptly, with documentation stored in the facility's electronic system and a hard copy in therapy. However, there was no record of a screening for this resident. The Director of Nursing confirmed that a screening was requested in the care plan dated March 10, 2024, and stated that it should occur within 3 to 5 business days, ideally within 72 hours. Despite this expectation, the screening and evaluation had not been conducted for seven weeks, indicating a failure to adhere to the facility's fall management policy, which requires monitoring and modifying care plans as necessary.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Showers to Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure scheduled showers were provided to dependent residents, affecting one sampled resident and two unsampled residents. Resident 246, who was admitted with dementia and muscle weakness, was observed to have received only one shower since admission, with no sponge or bed baths provided during missed showers. The resident's care plan required substantial assistance for activities of daily living, including bathing, but there was no documented evidence of a completed shower or refusal on the scheduled date. Resident 215, admitted with dementia and fractures, also did not receive scheduled showers or bed baths on multiple occasions in November 2023. The resident's medical records lacked documentation of any refusal, and the Director of Staff Development confirmed the absence of records for the scheduled showers. The resident required substantial assistance for bathing, as indicated in the assessment, but the facility failed to provide the necessary care. Resident 213, who had hemiplegia and required maximal assistance with bathing, did not receive scheduled showers or baths on several dates in November and December 2023. The ADL flowsheet lacked documentation of showers or baths, and there was no record of refusal. The facility's policy required assistance for residents unable to perform activities of daily living, but the facility did not adhere to this policy, resulting in a deficiency in providing necessary hygiene care.
Inadequate Justification and Care for Urinary Catheter Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate care for a resident with a urinary catheter, leading to a deficiency. Resident 203 was admitted with a diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) without lower urinary tract symptoms and had an indwelling catheter. The resident was unable to explain the need for the catheter, and the medical record lacked documentation of a bladder training program or justification for the catheter's use. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that BPH alone was not a sufficient diagnosis for catheter placement and that the diagnosis should be associated with urinary retention. The facility's policy required a determined need and medical indication for catheter use, and residents with indwelling catheters should be assessed for removal as soon as possible. However, these protocols were not followed for Resident 203.
Failure to Adhere to Fluid Restriction for Dialysis-Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to a physician-ordered fluid restriction for a dialysis-dependent resident, identified as Resident 14, who was diagnosed with end-stage renal disease and other cardiac conditions. The physician's order specified a daily fluid restriction of 1000 ml, with specific allocations for meals and nursing shifts, and required documentation of the resident's fluid intake. However, observations revealed that Resident 14 had access to a water pitcher containing approximately 1000 ml, along with other beverages such as soda and smoothies, which exceeded the prescribed fluid limit. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs), indicated a lack of awareness and communication regarding Resident 14's fluid restriction. The CNAs were unaware of the fluid restriction and continued to provide a full water pitcher throughout the day. The LPN confirmed the presence of excess fluids at the resident's bedside and expressed concerns about the lack of monitoring and documentation of fluid intake. The facility's Registered Dietitian (RD) and the dialysis center's RD both confirmed the necessity of the fluid restriction due to the resident's significant fluid retention and risk of complications. The facility's policies required adherence to physician orders and monitoring of fluid intake for residents on dialysis. Despite these policies, the care plan for Resident 14 did not reflect the fluid restriction, and staff failed to monitor and document the resident's actual fluid consumption. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the need for care planning and education regarding the resident's non-compliance with fluid restrictions, which posed a risk of fluid overload.
Failure to Account for Narcotics in Controlled Drug Record
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly account for narcotics signed out on the controlled drug record for a resident, which had the potential to delay pain management and increase the risk for harm. The resident, who had been admitted with conditions including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction, had a physician's order for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen to be administered as needed for moderate pain. However, the facility could not locate the narcotic log for several months, and the available records showed discrepancies between the narcotic log and the Medication Administration Record (MAR), indicating that the medication was signed out but not documented as administered. Interviews with facility staff, including the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), and the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed that the expected procedure was for nurses to document in the narcotic log every time a narcotic was pulled from stock and to reconcile this with the MAR. The facility's policy required maintaining a system for accounting controlled medications and conducting periodic reconciliations. However, the failure to maintain accurate records and reconcile the narcotic log with the MAR led to the deficiency identified by the surveyors.
Failure to Discontinue Contraindicated Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a physician's order to discontinue a medication was completed for one of the sampled residents, leading to the potential for adverse effects and unnecessary medication administration. Resident 14, who was admitted with end-stage renal disease and dependence on renal dialysis, was prescribed Spironolactone, a medication contraindicated for individuals on dialysis. A pharmacist reviewed the resident's medication regimen and recommended discontinuing Spironolactone on July 23, 2024. The physician agreed with this recommendation and indicated that the medication would be discontinued on July 29, 2024. Despite the physician's agreement to discontinue the medication, the medication administration record showed that Spironolactone was still active, with the most recent dose given on August 8, 2024. An LPN confirmed that the resident was still receiving the medication. The Director of Nursing explained the process for pharmacist review and noted that the Unit Manager was responsible for ensuring that physician responses were documented and acted upon. However, the Spironolactone order was not discontinued as recommended, indicating a failure in the facility's process to prevent unnecessary medication administration.
Medication Error Rate Exceeds Acceptable Threshold
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below five percent, as evidenced by a medication administration pass observation that revealed a 7.41% error rate. During the observation, 27 medication administration opportunities were noted, with two errors identified. One of the errors involved a resident who was prescribed Gabapentin 100 mg, two capsules to be taken three times a day for neuropathy, but was only administered one capsule. Additionally, the resident was supposed to receive Oxybutynin 5 mg, which was not administered, although it was documented as given in the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The resident involved had a medical history that included chronic kidney disease, acute kidney failure, and polyneuropathy. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) responsible for the medication pass confirmed the errors, acknowledging that the correct dosage of Gabapentin and the Oxybutynin were not administered as per the physician's orders. The Director of Nursing (DON) indicated that nurses are expected to verify the five rights of medication administration, including the right dosage and medication, and to check the MAR and physician's orders before administering medications. The facility's policy on medication administration emphasizes the importance of adhering to physician orders to ensure safe and appropriate medication administration.
Improper Food Storage and Labeling Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper labeling and dating of stored foods, as well as appropriate storage practices, which posed a potential risk to safety and health standards. During an observation on August 6, 2024, open bags of green beans, asparagus, and peppers & onion mix were found in the walk-in freezer without any indication of when they were opened. Additionally, a bottle of lemon juice, Jello packets, and canned pimentos in the dry storage area were missing received-on dates, and a milk substitute was stored in the reach-in cooler without a lid. The Dietary Manager acknowledged that these items should have been dated and properly stored. Further observations on August 7, 2024, revealed a jug of pink liquid in the reach-in cooler without a label or date, and employee drinks were improperly stored in the same cooler. Additionally, cookie dough ice cream was found in a container of cookie dough in the ice cream shop's reach-in freezer, with the Activity Director unable to explain how it got there. The facility's Food Safety document, reviewed on May 1, 2024, outlined proper food storage and labeling procedures, which were not followed in these instances.
Failure to Ensure Safe Discharge for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe discharge for two unsampled residents, R214 and R219, which could have resulted in them being placed in inappropriate home settings without the necessary care. For Resident 214, the discharge process was inadequately documented. Although the discharge summary indicated that the resident was cleared for discharge to a group home with home health services, there was no evidence that a representative from the group home evaluated the resident, nor was there documentation of the resident's or family's agreement to the discharge plan. Additionally, the Case Manager and Director of Social Services were not involved in the discharge process, and the former Social Worker who handled the case was no longer employed at the facility. Similarly, for Resident 219, the discharge process lacked proper documentation and involvement of key personnel. The resident was discharged to a group home, but there was no record of the spouse's involvement in the discharge process or confirmation that the group home representative evaluated the resident. Furthermore, the resident's file did not contain the address of the group home or its name. The Case Manager and Director of Social Services were also not involved in this discharge, and the former Social Worker was no longer with the facility. The facility's discharge policy, which requires resident and representative involvement and documentation of referrals, was not adhered to in these cases.
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 556 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 Las Vegas
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harmon Hospital - Snf | 0 mi | ★★★★★ | 14 | 0 |
| Trellis Paradise | 0.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Premier Health & Rehabilitation Center Of Lv, Lp | 2.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 20 | 0 |
| Las Vegas Post Acute & Rehabilitation | 2.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Advanced Health Care Of Paradise | 2.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Life Care Center Of South Las Vegas.
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.