Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
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 Continuing Healthcare Of Shadyside during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to issue timely refunds to two residents or their estate after discharge and death, respectively. One resident with multiple sclerosis and osteoporosis was discharged to another setting, but a refund of private pay funds was not issued until more than 90 days later, exceeding both regulatory and facility policy timeframes. Another resident with dementia died in the facility, and a substantial refund owed to the estate was also delayed beyond 90 days, with the responsible party reporting repeated, unanswered contacts to corporate staff. The receptionist, who handled petty cash and communicated with the off‑site business office, and the administrator both confirmed that the refunds were not processed within the required time limits.
The facility’s written assessment of its staffing needs did not accurately reflect the number of staff required to meet resident care needs. The assessment, based on an average daily census of 83 residents including a locked memory care unit, listed estimated numbers of licensed nurses and nurse aides needed for direct care. However, the Regional Administrator later confirmed that administrative nurses (such as the DON, ADON, and MDS nurse) had been incorrectly counted as direct-care licensed staff, and administrative personnel (such as admissions and medical records staff) had been counted as nurse aides. This resulted in an inaccurate facility-wide assessment of the staffing resources necessary to meet residents’ assessed needs and care plans.
A severely cognitively impaired resident, fully dependent for ADLs and with multiple medical conditions, was observed seated alone in the dining room wearing only a hospital gown that left the back and legs exposed, with a full breakfast tray in front of him that he was not feeding himself. A CNA acknowledged bringing the resident to the dining room in the gown due to time and staffing constraints and recognized this was not appropriate but did not further cover the resident. An LPN stated it was acceptable for residents to be in the dining area in hospital gowns, despite the resident’s inability to choose his attire. This situation conflicted with the facility’s written policy requiring that residents be treated with dignity, respect, and privacy.
Staff failed to protect resident health information privacy by discussing medical conditions and treatment plans in public areas. A nurse practitioner and an RN discussed one resident’s medications in a hallway and assessed another resident’s ankle pain and new medication orders at a table in an activities room while other residents were present, without seeking the resident’s preference or moving to a private area. During a meal, a speech therapist questioned a resident with cognitive issues about a recent doctor’s appointment in a crowded dining room and then loudly asked an LPN across the room for details, prompting the LPN to describe the appointment within earshot of other residents and visitors, contrary to the facility’s privacy policy.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, dysphagia, and total dependence for ADLs was brought to the dining room in an open-back hospital gown, leaving the resident exposed, and left sitting alone with a full breakfast tray and no staff assistance for an extended period. Breakfast had been delivered earlier, but no staff were present in the dining area, and the resident, who required full assistance with eating, was not fed until a CNA arrived from another unit and provided feeding without reheating the food. Staff interviews indicated there were not enough personnel or time to dress the resident appropriately before breakfast and that morning medication pass limited nurses’ ability to assist with feeding, despite a facility policy requiring care that maintains resident dignity and privacy.
Surveyors observed two residents in a memory care dining area eating lunch while a visitor held a small dog at the table, allowing the dog to lay its head on the table surface. The visitor, who had been holding the dog prior to the meal, did not perform hand hygiene and continued to hold the dog while feeding a resident. An LPN confirmed the sequence of events, and the DON acknowledged that having a dog at the table during meals and feeding a resident without hand hygiene violated the facility’s infection control policy, which is intended to reduce the risk of acquiring infections.
A resident with dementia and a history of falls experienced an unwitnessed fall and was found on the floor by a CNA, who notified an RN. The RN did not assess the resident or provide treatment, and the incident was not documented. The resident later complained of hip pain and showed decreased mobility, but was not transferred to the hospital until two days later, when an x-ray revealed a hip fracture.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions sustained a laceration to her foot requiring sutures after contacting a torn and rough footboard while attempting to sit up in bed. The unsafe condition of the footboard was not addressed prior to the incident, and there was no evidence of a system for ongoing maintenance and timely repair of resident equipment to prevent injuries.
A resident with multiple respiratory conditions experienced a decline in respiratory status, including labored breathing and low oxygen saturation. Staff administered oxygen above the ordered range for several days without additional interventions or updates to the care plan, and there was a lack of documented assessment or monitoring during a critical period. The resident was eventually transferred to the hospital and admitted for acute respiratory failure, COPD exacerbation, and pneumonia.
Four residents received antibiotics without meeting established infection criteria or proper documentation. In each case, antibiotics were administered for suspected infections such as pneumonia or UTI, but required surveillance checklists were incomplete or missing, and appropriate diagnostic tests were not always performed or communicated to the provider. Facility policy requiring infection prevention oversight and documentation was not consistently followed.
The facility did not follow dietary recommendations for two residents with complex medical needs, including not providing a prescribed nighttime protein snack for a resident on dialysis and failing to consistently document meal intake for another resident with malnutrition and dementia. Staff interviews and record reviews confirmed that dietary orders were not implemented and meal intake documentation was incomplete.
A resident with end stage renal disease and multiple comorbidities had all morning medications withheld on dialysis days over several months without a current physician order. Staff followed an outdated order from a previous admission, and the facility did not coordinate with the dialysis center or provider to clarify medication administration times, leading to improper medication management.
A resident admitted under hospice care with multiple diagnoses did not have medications properly reconciled on admission, resulting in an incorrect Lorazepam order and inconsistent documentation of Morphine administration. The MAR and narcotic count sheet contained discrepancies, and staff confirmed the errors in medication entry and record-keeping.
A resident with dementia and a history of falls experienced an unwitnessed fall that was not documented in the medical record, and neither the resident's representative nor the physician was notified until several days later, after the resident was hospitalized. This failure to follow notification protocols was confirmed by facility staff and was not in accordance with the facility's fall policy.
A resident with multiple comorbidities and a history of pressure ulcers was found to have a pressure relieving air mattress set incorrectly for their weight, contrary to the manufacturer's guidelines. Staff were unaware of the correct setting and did not address the service light, which indicated the mattress required maintenance. Documentation showed the mattress was checked regularly, but the improper setting and lack of response to the service alert persisted.
Failure to Timely Issue Resident Refunds After Discharge and Death
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents received refunds due within the regulatory timeframe of 30 days, and also failed to meet its own 90‑day refund policy. One resident with multiple sclerosis and osteoporosis was admitted and later discharged to an assisted living facility, with nursing documentation confirming the discharge. An invoice showed that this resident’s refund check for $1,565 was not issued until more than 90 days after discharge, exceeding both the facility’s policy and regulatory requirements. Another resident with dementia was admitted and later expired in the facility, with nursing notes documenting the death and notification of the physician, family, and hospice. An invoice indicated that a refund check for $6,440 to this resident’s estate was issued more than 90 days after the resident’s death. The responsible party reported not having received the refund despite multiple contacts with corporate staff. The receptionist, who managed petty cash and communicated with the corporate office, believed refunds should be issued within 90 days and acknowledged that the time elapsed for this refund exceeded that period. The administrator confirmed that refunds are processed by the corporate office, not on-site, and acknowledged that both residents’ refunds were issued later than 90 days after discharge or death and beyond the 30‑day regulatory requirement.
Inaccurate Facility Assessment of Staffing Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately complete its facility-wide assessment regarding the number of staff needed to provide competent care to all residents during routine operations and emergencies. The written Facility Assessment Tool, updated 02/13/26, documented an average daily census of 83 residents, including a locked memory care unit with a 32-bed capacity and an average daily census of 28. The assessment identified a wide range of care needs for the memory care unit, including ADLs, mobility and fall risk, bowel and bladder care, skin integrity, mental health and behavioral needs, medications, pain management, infection prevention and control, management of medical conditions, therapy, nutrition, and person-centered psycho/social/spiritual support. The facility’s assessment stated it estimated needing 12–14 licensed nursing staff to provide direct care, 20–25 nurse aides, and three nursing personnel with administrative duties to care for the resident population. During an interview, the Regional Administrator confirmed that the staffing estimates documented on the Facility Assessment were incorrect. She explained that, when determining the number of licensed nurses providing direct care, she had inappropriately included administrative nurses such as the DON, ADON, and MDS nurse. Similarly, when calculating the number of nurse aides, she had included individuals in administrative roles, such as admissions and medical records staff. As a result, the facility assessment did not accurately reflect the overall number of facility staff actually needed to ensure a sufficient number of qualified staff were available to meet each resident’s needs as identified through resident assessments and care plans. This deficiency was identified as an incidental finding during the investigation of Master Complaint Number 2746972.
Resident Dignity Not Maintained When Brought to Dining Room in Exposing Hospital Gown
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to protect a resident’s dignity when a severely cognitively impaired memory care resident was observed seated alone in the dining room wearing only a hospital gown, with his back and legs exposed. The resident had multiple medical diagnoses including unspecified dementia, psychosis, delusional disorder, TIA, depression, anxiety, and significant physical limitations such as muscle weakness, difficulty walking, and unsteadiness. His most recent MDS showed a BIMS score of 0, highly impaired vision, unclear speech, and dependence on staff for all ADLs, including dressing, toileting, and eating. At the time of observation, he had a full breakfast tray in front of him but was not feeding himself. A CNA confirmed that the resident had been brought to the dining room in the hospital gown and stated there was not enough time or staff to get him dressed before breakfast, acknowledging that this was not appropriate attire for the dining room but leaving him uncovered. An LPN reported she believed it was appropriate for residents, particularly skilled residents, to be in the dining area in hospital gowns, while also acknowledging that this resident could not choose how he was dressed due to his cognitive impairment. The resident’s spouse stated she believed staff did everything they could given staffing ratios and that responses could be delayed because staff were busy. The facility’s Dignity, Respect, and Privacy Policy stated that residents were to be treated with respect and cared for in a manner that protected their privacy, but this was not followed in this incident.
Failure to Protect Resident Health Information Privacy in Public Areas
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failures to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of residents’ personal health information during clinical interactions in public areas. A nurse practitioner and an RN discussed medications with Resident #7 in a hallway near a resident room after the resident approached the NP with questions about medications prescribed the prior day; there was no evidence the NP directed the resident to a private location for this discussion. The same NP and RN then went to the activities room, where six residents were seated at a table playing a dice game, and the NP discussed Resident #42’s ankle pain and the plan to prescribe new medication at the table without asking if the resident was comfortable being assessed there or making any accommodations to move her away from the other residents. Resident #42’s record contained a progress note documenting that she was seen by the NP and that new orders were received related to complaints of leg pain. A separate incident occurred in the dining area during lunch, where a speech therapist spoke with Resident #79 about a recent doctor’s appointment in the presence of two visitors, 11 residents, and two LPNs. When the resident, who had cognitive issues, could not provide the information, the therapist loudly called across the room to an LPN to ask about the appointment, and the LPN responded by describing the physician visit loudly enough to be heard from the other side of the room. The LPN later confirmed that private medical information had been requested and shared in the full dining area and acknowledged that this information should not have been disclosed in that public setting. These actions were inconsistent with the facility’s Dignity, Respect, and Privacy Policy, which requires that unnecessary individuals be asked to leave while care is provided and that residents’ privacy and dignity be maintained.
Insufficient Staffing Led to Delayed Feeding and Inappropriate Attire in Dining Area
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide sufficient nursing staff to maintain the highest practicable psychosocial well-being of a resident who was dependent for all ADLs and required full assistance with eating. The resident had severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 0), highly impaired vision, unclear speech, and multiple medical diagnoses including dementia, dysphagia, psychosis, delusional disorder, depression, anxiety, and significant physical limitations such as muscle weakness, difficulty walking, and unsteadiness. The MDS documented that the resident was dependent for eating and all ADLs, required a mechanically altered diet, and needed to be up in a chair for meals with assistance for intake per speech therapy. On the morning of the survey observation, breakfast trays arrived to the memory care unit shortly before 8:00 A.M. At 8:55 A.M., the resident was observed sitting alone in the dining room in a wheelchair, wearing a hospital gown that was open in the back, leaving his back and legs exposed, with a full breakfast tray in front of him. No staff were present in the dining area, and the resident was not feeding himself. A CNA confirmed that the resident had been brought to the dining room in the hospital gown because there was not enough time or enough staff to get him dressed before breakfast, despite knowing this attire was not appropriate for the dining room. The care plan included interventions for fall risk and having the resident eat meals in the all-purpose room for closer monitoring when awake. The resident remained without feeding assistance until 9:23 A.M., when another CNA arrived from a different unit and began feeding him, giving a few bites without reheating the food and then completing the meal. This CNA believed the resident sometimes fed himself and was unsure why he had not been fed earlier, estimating that breakfast trays arrived around 8:00 A.M. An LPN stated that nurses helped feed residents when they could but that mornings were very busy with medication pass, and she believed it was acceptable for a resident to be in the dining area in a hospital gown, even though the resident could not choose his clothing due to cognitive impairment. The resident’s spouse reported that he had required assistance with eating since a recent hospitalization for pneumonia and that she came daily to feed him lunch, noting that staff response could be delayed because they were very busy. The facility’s Dignity, Respect, and Privacy Policy required that residents be treated with respect and cared for in a manner that protected their privacy.
Dog at Dining Table and Lack of Hand Hygiene Breach Infection Control Policy
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s infection prevention and control program when a visitor’s dog was allowed at a dining table while residents were eating. During observation of the memory care unit dining area at lunchtime, two residents were seated together at a small table, each accompanied by a visitor. The visitor for Resident #77 was holding a small dog that repeatedly laid its head on the dining table. When Resident #77’s lunch tray arrived, the visitor continued to hold the dog and began feeding the resident without performing hand hygiene. An interview with LPN #384 confirmed that the visitor had been present prior to lunch, had continuously held the dog, and had not washed her hands or put the dog down at any point before feeding the resident. In a separate interview, the DON confirmed that having a dog at the table while residents were eating, and holding a dog while feeding a resident without hand hygiene, constituted an infection control issue and was against the facility’s infection control policy. Review of the facility’s Infection Control Prevention Policy, updated 01/11/25, showed that the facility’s policy was to provide care in a safe environment that promoted health and reduced the risk of acquiring infections. This incident was cited as an incidental finding of non-compliance during investigation of a master complaint.
Failure to Timely Assess and Treat Resident After Unwitnessed Fall
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident experienced an unwitnessed fall with injury, and the facility failed to provide a timely assessment and necessary treatment. The incident began when a CNA observed the resident on the floor in front of her wheelchair and notified an RN. However, the RN did not assess the resident or provide needed treatment at that time. The CNA, after waiting for the nurse, assisted the resident back into her wheelchair without a nursing assessment, and there was no documentation of the fall or any assessment in the medical record for that date. Following the fall, the resident, who had a history of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, repeated falls, and was receiving hospice care, complained of hip pain and exhibited decreased mobility. Despite these symptoms, the resident was not transferred to the emergency room until two days later, after further assessment revealed significant pain and physical changes, including a leg length discrepancy. X-rays subsequently confirmed an acute right hip fracture, and the resident was then transferred to the hospital for treatment. Interviews and record reviews confirmed that the facility's fall policy, which required immediate assessment and notification of the physician and family, was not followed. The RN did not assess the resident after being notified of the fall, and the incident was not documented in the medical record. The lack of timely assessment and intervention resulted in a delay in necessary treatment for the resident's injury.
Failure to Maintain Safe Resident Equipment Resulting in Injury
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to maintain a resident's bedroom furniture in a safe condition, resulting in an injury. The resident, who had a history of respiratory failure, COPD, and type II diabetes, sustained a laceration to the top of her right foot after her foot came into contact with a torn and rough footboard while she was attempting to sit up in bed. The incident happened in the early morning hours, and the wound required hospital treatment, including the placement of seven sutures. Documentation and interviews confirmed that the footboard was in a state of disrepair at the time of the incident. Further review and staff interviews revealed that the rough patch on the footboard had not been addressed prior to the injury. There was no evidence provided to show that the facility had an effective system in place for the ongoing maintenance and timely repair of resident equipment to prevent such injuries. The resident's medical condition, including significant leg swelling and fragile skin, increased her vulnerability to injury, but the unsafe condition of the footboard was the direct cause of harm.
Failure to Provide Timely and Adequate Respiratory Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate and timely respiratory care and treatment for a resident with a complex medical history, including COPD, asthma, and recent pneumonia. The resident experienced a decline in respiratory status, exhibiting symptoms such as shortness of breath, abnormal lung sounds, and decreased oxygen saturation. Despite an order for oxygen at 1-5 liters per minute, staff increased the oxygen to seven liters without additional interventions or new orders, and there was no documented evidence of further assessment or monitoring of the resident's respiratory or neurological status for a two-day period. The resident's care plan included interventions for COPD, such as monitoring for signs of respiratory insufficiency and infection, but there was no documentation reflecting the use of oxygen or updates to the plan of care after the resident's respiratory decline. Progress notes indicated that the resident had labored breathing and low oxygen saturation, yet no new treatments or orders were implemented by the nurse practitioner after these findings. The medication administration record showed that oxygen was administered above the ordered range for five days, with no corresponding documentation of physician notification or adjustment of the care plan. Ultimately, the resident developed new onset shortness of breath and chest pain, with abnormal lung sounds and pitting edema, leading to a transfer to the hospital where the resident was admitted for acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, acute exacerbation of COPD, and pneumonia. Interviews with staff confirmed concerns about the resident's status and a lack of timely intervention or escalation of care prior to the hospital transfer.
Failure to Ensure Antibiotic Use Met Established Criteria
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that antibiotic usage met established criteria, as evidenced by the administration of antibiotics to four residents without proper documentation or justification according to McGeer's criteria. In one case, a resident with chronic respiratory failure, heart failure, and liver disease was given Omnicef for pneumonia despite not meeting the criteria for antibiotic treatment, with no documented explanation from the physician. The infection preventionist confirmed that the x-ray did not show pneumonia and there was no evidence supporting the need for antibiotics. Another resident with heart failure, diabetes, and benign prostatic hyperplasia received Bactrim for a urinary tract infection after returning from the hospital, but was not listed on the infection control log and did not have McGeer criteria completed. The DON and RN confirmed that the resident did not meet the criteria for antibiotic treatment, and the infection preventionist was not notified until several days after the antibiotics were started. Similarly, a resident with dementia and diabetes was started on Keflex for a suspected urinary tract infection without a completed culture or McGeer criteria form, and there was no evidence that the physician was informed about the lack of culture results. A fourth resident with dementia, ileus, and dysphagia was treated with Keflex for a urinary tract infection after returning from the emergency room, despite a urinalysis showing no significant growth and not meeting McGeer's criteria. The DON documented that the resident was started on antibiotics in the emergency room, but the medical provider ordered the medication to be continued based on a change in condition, agitation, and increased confusion, rather than established infection criteria. Facility policy required the infection preventionist to ensure appropriate testing and documentation before antibiotics were ordered, but this was not consistently followed.
Failure to Implement Dietary Recommendations and Monitor Nutrition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement dietary recommendations and adequately monitor and document meal intake for two residents with significant nutritional needs. For one resident with end stage renal disease, protein-calorie malnutrition, heart failure, diabetes, and liver disease, the dialysis dietician had recommended high-protein snacks at night to address low albumin levels. Despite this recommendation being faxed to the facility, there was no evidence of a corresponding order, documentation, or provision of a nighttime protein snack. Interviews confirmed that the facility's dietician had misplaced the recommendation, and the resident did not routinely receive a protein snack at night unless specifically requested. For another resident with dementia, anemia, malnutrition, and other chronic conditions, the care plan included multiple interventions to address nutritional risk, such as monitoring meal intake and providing assistance as needed. However, review of documentation revealed several instances where meal intake was not recorded, and analysis of the available records showed variable and often low meal consumption. Staff interviews confirmed that meal intake was expected to be documented for every meal, but gaps in documentation were present. Observations and interviews further supported that the facility did not consistently follow through on dietary recommendations or maintain accurate records of residents' nutritional intake. The lack of implementation of specific dietary orders and incomplete documentation of meal consumption contributed to the deficiency in ensuring adequate food and fluid provision to maintain residents' health.
Failure to Clarify and Implement Dialysis Medication Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that dialysis orders regarding the holding of medications were clarified and properly implemented for a resident with end stage renal disease and multiple comorbidities, including heart failure, diabetes, and liver disease. Medical record review showed that after the resident's readmission, there was no evidence of physician orders to hold medications on dialysis days, yet staff continued to withhold all morning medications on those days. This practice occurred repeatedly over several months, as documented in the medication administration records, without any supporting physician order. Interviews with the DON confirmed that staff were following an outdated order from a previous admission and had not obtained clarification or new orders from the physician or dialysis center. The DON acknowledged that staff held all morning medications on dialysis days in February, March, and April without a current physician order. The facility's policy required coordination with the dialysis center and provider regarding medication administration times, but this was not followed, resulting in the deficiency.
Failure to Reconcile and Accurately Document Medications on Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper reconciliation of medications upon admission for a resident who was admitted under hospice care and had multiple complex diagnoses, including dementia, Alzheimer's disease, COPD, and a malignant neoplasm. The hospice medication list specified Lorazepam 0.5 mg to be given every four hours for anxiety and/or restlessness, and Morphine Sulfate Oral Solution to be administered in varying doses based on pain level or shortness of breath. However, the physician order entered at admission incorrectly listed Lorazepam to be given four times a day instead of every four hours as per the hospice order. This discrepancy was confirmed by the Regional Clinical RN during an interview. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the documentation and administration of Morphine Sulfate. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) and the narcotic count sheet did not match regarding the times and amounts of Morphine administered. For example, the MAR showed doses of 0.75 ml and 1.0 ml administered at specific times, while the narcotic count sheet recorded a 0.5 ml dose at different times, indicating inaccurate documentation. These failures in medication reconciliation and documentation were identified through medical record review and staff interviews.
Failure to Notify Resident Representative and Physician After Unwitnessed Fall
Penalty
Summary
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including dementia, Alzheimer's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, malignant neoplasm of the bronchus or lung, and a history of repeated falls, was admitted to the facility on hospice services. The resident's baseline care plan identified them as being at risk for elopement, wandering, and falls, with interventions in place such as keeping commonly used articles within reach, maintaining clear pathways, monitoring for side effects of psychotropic medications, and assigning a room close to the nurses' station. On a specified date, the resident experienced an unwitnessed fall, as documented in the facility's investigation. Despite the fall, there was no documentation in the resident's medical record indicating that the fall occurred, nor was there evidence that the resident's representative or physician was notified at the time of the incident. Notification to the responsible party and physician did not occur until several days later, after the resident was hospitalized. The facility's fall policy required prompt notification of the physician and resident representative following a fall, but this protocol was not followed in this instance.
Failure to Set and Maintain Pressure Relieving Mattress per Manufacturer Guidelines
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a pressure relieving air mattress was set according to the resident's weight and maintained per the manufacturer's guidelines for a resident with a history of pressure ulcers and multiple comorbidities, including suspected deep tissue injury, peripheral vascular disease, anemia, chronic kidney disease, vascular dementia, hemiplegia, protein-calorie malnutrition, and diabetes. The resident's care plan and medical records indicated the use of an air mattress as an intervention for impaired skin integrity, with the resident weighing 174.5 pounds. However, observations revealed that the mattress was set at a level intended for residents weighing 441-500 pounds, rather than the correct setting for the resident's weight range of 163-244 pounds as specified by the manufacturer's label and manual. Despite staff documenting that the mattress was checked every shift and no issues were noted, the incorrect setting persisted, and the service light on the mattress was illuminated, indicating the need for service after a certain number of hours of use. Interviews with staff, including the ADON and CNA, confirmed a lack of awareness regarding the correct weight-based setting and the significance of the service light. The facility was not tracking the service light or notifying the rental company when it was activated, as required by the manufacturer's guidelines. These actions and inactions resulted in the failure to provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevention for the resident.
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 214 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 Shadyside
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moundsville Healthcare Center | 2.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 15 | 0 |
| Country Club Retirement Ctr Iv | 3.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 19 | 0 |
| Rolling Hills Rehab And Care Ctr | 7.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 18 | 1 |
| Continuous Care Center Wheeling Hospital | 7.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Peterson Rehabilitation And Healthcare | 8.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Continuing Healthcare Of Shadyside.
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.