Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around January 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Marion Nursing & Rehab during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to include bed hold pricing information on bed hold notices and failed to document the reason for transfer/discharge notices to the resident/representative and the Ombudsman for three residents. Records showed hospital transfers or discharge related to emergent health changes, but the bed hold forms left the room and board rate blank, and staff confirmed they had been instructed not to complete the pricing section. There was also no documented evidence that the required discharge notice content was provided.
Incorrect MDS Coding for Ventilator Therapy and Medications The facility failed to code several resident assessments accurately in the MDS. Multiple residents using AVAP/AVAPS therapy by facial mask were coded as receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, even though the RT, RTM, MDS nurse, and DON confirmed the devices were non-invasive and no resident had an ET tube or trach. Two additional residents were miscoded for medication items, with one receiving an anticoagulant and another receiving a diuretic despite the MDS showing otherwise.
The facility failed to prevent accidents for two residents. One resident with multiple chronic conditions and identified fall risk was placed in a new bariatric bed without grab bars, and staff did not ensure the call light was within reach as care planned. The resident raised the bed to a high level and fell while reaching for an out-of-reach call light and bedside table; the DON later confirmed the new bed had not been assessed and the call light was not within reach at the time of the fall. Another resident with Alzheimer’s and dementia on a secured memory care unit, who had been observed pacing halls, pressing on locked doors, and calling others to get him out, was allowed by a unit manager to leave the locked unit with a male visitor to go to the parking lot. Staff did not verify authorization with the POA, did not immediately recognize that the resident had not returned, and did not know his whereabouts for a period of time before learning he had left the property with the visitor and was later taken to a hospital for aggressive behavior after being removed from the locked unit against the POA’s wishes.
A resident with COPD, emphysema, encephalopathy, malignant neoplasm, fibromyalgia, and dementia requested a code status change from Full Code to DNRCC during a care conference, but the request was not acted on at that time. The chart remained Full Code until a later DNRCC-A form was completed, and the DON and Social Services confirmed the request was not followed up on when first made.
A resident with cerebral infarction, right-hand contracture, hemiparesis, and severe cognitive impairment had a splint/brace program ordered and documented by OT, but the care plan did not include the resident’s repeated refusal of the right-hand splint. Splint records showed 20 refusals, and observations found the resident in bed without the splint in place. The resident said the splint was uncomfortable, an LPN confirmed the noncompliance, and the DON acknowledged it should have been care planned.
Failure to Verify Significant Weight Change: A resident with COPD, morbid obesity, heart failure, and other serious diagnoses had a significant weight loss after hospital return, but staff did not verify the weight with a reweigh. The DON confirmed staff were expected to reweigh for a 3 to 5 pound change, yet no reweigh was done after a 16.2-pound loss; the Unit Manager said the loss was attributed to fluid overload and meds. Facility policy required a reweigh for a plus or minus 5-pound variance.
Oxygen was not administered per MD order for a resident with COPD and chronic respiratory failure. The resident was ordered 3 L/min via NC continuously, but surveyors observed the resident receiving 4 L/min on multiple occasions. A CNA confirmed the higher flow rate, and an LPN confirmed there was no order to increase oxygen as needed, although the MD had been notified. The facility policy required nursing to verify the physician order before oxygen administration.
Delayed laboratory testing for suspected UTI: An LPN documented unusual behaviors in a resident with Huntington's disease and severe cognitive impairment and contacted the CNP for UTI evaluation, but no urine collection or lab orders were placed in the record at that time. Urine was collected several days later, the specimen reached the lab after additional delay, and UA and culture results later showed E. coli; an RN later contacted the CNP about the results and antibiotic orders were entered.
The facility's front entrance doorbell was found to be nonfunctional, with no cover plate and no sound when pressed, and there was no posted signage with a phone number for entry assistance. Multiple staff, including the Administrator, DON, and LPNs, were unaware of the issue, and the Director of Maintenance had not included the doorbell in routine checks. There was also no consistent policy or practice for locking the front entrance door at night.
A significant portion of residents were left without a functioning call light system, with some relying on hand bells or phone calls to request assistance. Staff and administration confirmed the system had been nonfunctional or intermittent for weeks, and while hand bells and increased rounding were used as interim measures, there was no clear documentation of repair efforts or frequency of staff checks. Facility policies lacked specific guidance on maintaining or repairing the call light system.
The facility failed to maintain crash carts with non-expired medical devices, affecting all 69 residents. An LPN confirmed that the crash cart in the skilled nursing area contained expired syringes, angiocaths, intravenous start kits, and blood glucose test strips. The dementia unit's cart also had expired suction catheter kits and a providone swab stick. The facility's policy required replacement of expired items.
The facility failed to properly clean a glucose monitor device after use, affecting three residents directly and potentially impacting 15 others. An LPN used an incorrect substance to clean the device, and another LPN did not clean the device between testing two residents. The facility's policy required the device to be disinfected with an EPA-registered healthcare disinfectant after each use.
A resident with cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses developed a rash that was reported to staff but not documented or assessed until two days later. The facility failed to follow its policies on notifying physicians and documenting changes in the resident's condition, leading to a delay in treatment.
The facility failed to ensure food was served at safe holding temperatures, with observed temperatures for meatballs, vegetables, and rice below the required 135 degrees Fahrenheit. Interviews revealed a lack of awareness and training regarding appropriate hot holding temperatures.
Missing Bed Hold Pricing and Transfer/Discharge Notice Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure bed hold notices included pricing information and failed to provide a reason for transfer/discharge notices to the resident or representative and the Ombudsman for three residents. Review of records, staff interviews, and facility policy showed that the required bed hold forms were completed for each resident, but the per diem room and board rate was left blank and there was no documented indication that the resident or representative was informed of the cost to hold the bed. For one resident with diagnoses including toxic effect of metals, diabetes, acute kidney failure, and muscle weakness, staff documented seizure-like activity, a low lithium toxicity level, and an attempted lab draw before the resident was sent to the hospital for emergency care. The bed hold notice for this resident stated the family gave verbal authorization to hold the bed, but it did not include pricing information. The ombudsman notification form stated the resident was sent to the hospital, but there was no documented evidence that a discharge notice was provided to the resident/representative and the Ombudsman. For the other two residents, one with dementia, psychotic disturbance, and CHF and another with major depressive disorder, ESRD, diabetes, and joint pain, the records showed hospital transfers or discharge related to an emergent health condition or a change in condition. Their bed hold notices also lacked pricing information, and there was no documented evidence that discharge notices were provided to the resident/representative and the Ombudsman. Staff interviews confirmed the bed hold forms did not include prices, that staff had been instructed not to complete the pricing section, and that discharge notice reasons had not been provided. The Administrator also confirmed the facility did not have evidence of transfer notification documents with pricing information.
Incorrect MDS Coding for Ventilator Therapy and Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure resident assessments were accurate and coded correctly in the MDS database for six residents reviewed. The deficiency involved incorrect MDS coding for mechanical ventilation and medication items, including residents who were documented as receiving non-invasive AVAP/AVAPS therapy through a facial mask but were coded as using invasive mechanical ventilation. Facility staff, including the MDS nurse, DON, RT, RTM, and corporate nurse, confirmed that the AVAP/AVAPS machines used by residents were non-invasive and that none of the residents had endotracheal tubes or tracheostomy tubes. For one resident with congestive heart failure, COPD, obesity, depression, diabetes, and anxiety, the record showed physician orders for mechanical ventilator via AVAP at bedtime and as needed, care plans focused on ventilator dependence, and observation showed the resident in bed on nasal cannula without using the ventilator at the time. The resident stated he used a face mask at night and had never had an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube. The Administrator and MDS nurse stated they had been instructed by corporate to code the resident as using invasive mechanical ventilation based on the MDS interpretation of the AVAP device, despite staff confirming the device was non-invasive. Similar findings were identified for other residents receiving AVAP/AVAPS therapy. One resident with COPD, sleep apnea, myocardial infarction, heart disease, and hypertension was coded as using invasive mechanical ventilation even though the resident reported using the face mask only at night and sometimes refusing the device, and RT staff confirmed the therapy was non-invasive. Another resident with dementia, dependence on respirator status, central sleep apnea, and chronic respiratory failure was observed asleep in bed with the AVAPS machine off, while staff confirmed the device was used via face mask and was non-invasive. In addition, two residents had MDS assessments that incorrectly documented medication use: one resident was coded as not receiving an anticoagulant despite daily Rivaroxaban administration, and another resident was coded as not receiving a diuretic despite daily Hydrochlorothiazide administration. The DON confirmed both MDS assessments were incorrectly coded.
Failure to Prevent Fall and Elopement for High-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for two residents. For one resident with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, COPD, obesity, depression, diabetes type 2, and anxiety, the quarterly MDS showed intact cognition, a need for two-person assistance with ADLs, and a risk for falls. The resident’s care plan identified fall risk and included an intervention that the call light be kept within reach, wrapped around the transfer handle on the bed. After the resident experienced an unwitnessed fall in his room, the fall investigation documented that he had been found on the floor on his left side, with the bed in a raised position, and that he reported falling while reaching for his call light, which was out of reach. The DON confirmed that at the time of the fall the resident had been placed in a new bariatric bed without grab bars and that no bed rail assessment had been completed for the new bed until nearly two weeks later. Subsequent observation showed the resident in bed with the bed elevated and the call light clipped to the bed sheet at the head of the bed, rather than wrapped around a transfer handle as care planned. The resident reported that when he first received the new bed, it did not have the two transfer bars attached for the first few days, that he had raised the bed to a high level, and that he rolled out of bed while trying to reach a call light and bedside table that were out of reach. He stated he had been educated not to raise the bed to the highest level but preferred it raised despite the fall risk, and he believed the fall was partly due to his own actions and partly due to staff not placing the call light within reach and not applying the grab bars on the new bed. An LPN stated the resident was non‑compliant with keeping the bed low, that staff had left the bed in a low position, and that the resident raised it after they left; the LPN could not recall whether the call light had been left within reach. The DON verified that the call light was not within reach at the time of the fall and that the new bed had not been assessed before use. The deficiency also involves the facility’s failure to ensure the safety and security of a newly admitted resident with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, diabetes, and hypertension, who resided on a secured memory care unit and was an elopement risk. On admission, an elopement assessment scored the resident as low risk, and no further elopement assessments were completed through the time of the incident. The resident’s care plan initially addressed impaired cognition and dementia but did not identify elopement risk until later; progress notes documented that the resident’s daughter/POA requested removal of the resident’s cell phone because he was calling the police and repeatedly calling about getting out of the facility. Staff interviews revealed that the resident had been observed walking the halls and pressing on locked exit doors and that he later left the locked memory care unit with a male visitor who was not an approved contact, carrying a duffle bag of belongings, after the unit manager allowed the visitor to take him to the parking lot to exchange items. CNAs and nursing staff reported that the resident did not return, that staff did not know his whereabouts for an estimated 30–60 minutes before they began searching, and that they discovered he had left the property with the visitor. Multiple staff members, including an LPN and CNAs, stated that residents from the memory care unit should not be allowed off the unit or off the property with anyone other than the POA or approved individuals, and that staff should check the medical record to verify who is authorized to take a resident out. The LPN and CNAs considered the event an elopement because staff did not know where the resident was for a period of time and he had expressed a desire to leave. The facility’s internal timeline indicated that a friend asked to accompany the resident outside to gather laundry, that the unit manager agreed, and that the resident got into the friend’s vehicle without notifying staff. Social Services staff reported seeing the resident, known to be from the memory care unit, get into a car with a male visitor and the resident’s wife and drive out of the parking lot, but did not inform unit staff. Hospital records from that day documented that the resident was removed from a locked Alzheimer’s unit with a friend against the POA’s wishes, taken home, became increasingly agitated, and made suicidal statements, leading to his transport to the emergency department. Interviews with facility leadership confirmed that the resident was out of the facility for about 12 hours, that the elopement assessment and care plan were not updated when the resident began exhibiting behaviors such as pressing on doors, pacing the halls, and calling others to get him out, and that interventions related to elopement risk were not initiated until after the incident.
Advance Directive Status Not Addressed Timely
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident’s advance directive status was addressed timely and accurately in the medical record. Resident #59 was admitted with diagnoses including COPD, emphysema, encephalopathy, malignant neoplasm, fibromyalgia, and dementia. The resident’s physician orders showed Full Code status from admission through 02/10/26, and the quarterly MDS completed on 11/12/25 indicated the resident was cognitively intact. During the care conference on 12/04/25, the resident requested a change in code status from Full Code to DNRCC, but the request was not implemented at that time. The resident’s signed DNRCC form was not completed until 02/03/26, showing DNRCC-A, and physician orders and the care plan were updated to DNRCC-A on 02/10/26. The DON and Social Services confirmed the resident’s request for a code status change was not followed up on during the care conference and was only addressed later when the new code status form was completed.
Failure to Document Splint Noncompliance in Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident #57’s splint noncompliance was documented in the care plan. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, reduced mobility, contracture of the right hand, and hemiparesis and hemiplegia following cerebral infarction. The care plan dated 11/14/25 identified a need for a splint or brace program and stated the resident was dependent on staff for application and removal, with interventions to assess for pain, assess for progress and need, explain the procedure before performing it, and apply a soft splint to the right hand daily as tolerated. However, the care plan did not include documentation of the resident’s refusal of the splint or brace. Physician orders dated 01/01/26 included a right hand splint as tolerated with skin assessment at each application and removal. OT evaluation and treatment planning dated 01/09/26 documented impaired range of motion in the right wrist, hand, and fingers and included splint management interventions. Splint application documentation from 01/19/26 through 02/16/26 showed the resident refused the splint 20 times. The quarterly MDS identified the resident as severely cognitively impaired, with one-sided upper extremity impairment, substantial to maximal assistance with upper body dressing, and receiving splint or brace assistance. During observations on 02/11/26 and 02/17/26, the resident was lying in bed without the splint on the right hand. The resident stated the splint was uncomfortable and that he only occasionally allowed staff to place it. An LPN confirmed the resident was noncompliant and was unaware whether this was currently care planned, and the DON confirmed the noncompliance should be documented in the care plan.
Failure to Verify Significant Weight Change
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident's weight measurements were verified after a significant weight change. Resident #22 was admitted with diagnoses including acute and chronic respiratory failure, COPD, morbid obesity, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, acute pulmonary edema, peripheral vascular disease, and shortness of breath. The care plan identified the resident as at risk for altered nutritional and hydration status, and the annual MDS noted significant weight loss without a prescribed weight loss regimen and no nutritional supplements. A nutritional assessment also identified risk for nutritional and fluid imbalance related to obesity, COPD, and sepsis, with interventions to monitor weights, oral intake, skin, and labs. Record review showed the resident weighed 372.2 pounds on 01/02/26 and 356 pounds on 02/01/26, a loss of 16.2 pounds or 4.35 percent in one month. Physician orders for weekly weights were not entered until 02/03/26, and the next documented weight was 360.8 pounds on 02/10/26. The DON confirmed the resident had a significant weight change after readmission from the hospital and stated staff were expected to verify the weighing method and obtain a reweigh for a change of three to five pounds, but a reweigh was not completed after the 16.2-pound loss. The Unit Manager also confirmed no reweigh was obtained and stated the weight change was attributed to fluid overload resolved during hospitalization and medications, so a reweigh was not requested. The facility policy stated a reweigh would be obtained when there is a weight variance of plus or minus five pounds.
Oxygen Administered Above Ordered Flow Rate
Penalty
Summary
Supplemental oxygen was not administered per physician order for one resident who had diagnoses including acute and chronic respiratory failure, COPD, morbid obesity, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, acute pulmonary edema, peripheral vascular disease, and shortness of breath. The resident’s annual MDS indicated cognitive intactness and that oxygen therapy was being received. A physician order dated 12/31/25 directed oxygen at 3 liters per minute by nasal cannula continuously, and the care plan addressed oxygen therapy related to COPD. During observation on 02/10/26 and again on 02/11/26, the resident was receiving oxygen at 4 liters per nasal cannula rather than the ordered 3 liters. The resident denied shortness of breath during one observation. A CNA confirmed the resident was receiving 4 liters, and an LPN confirmed the resident was currently on 4 liters nasal cannula and stated there was no physician order to increase oxygen as needed, although the physician had been notified. A progress note documented that the resident reported not feeling good, vital signs were taken, an assessment was completed, and the oxygen was increased to 4 liters via nasal cannula with oxygen saturation at 95%. The facility’s oxygen administration policy stated nursing should verify a physician order and review the physician order or facility protocol for oxygen administration.
Delayed Laboratory Testing for Suspected UTI
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to execute timely laboratory orders for one resident with Huntington's disease, overactive bladder, spinal stenosis of the lumbar region, and severe cognitive impairment. On 12/19/25, an LPN documented unusual behaviors, including cleaning walls with tissue paper and attempting to put lotion on a sandwich, and contacted the CNP, who gave orders to check for a UTI. However, the medical record did not contain an order for urine collection, urinalysis, or culture and sensitivity/susceptibility testing at that time. Urine was not collected until 12/25/25, and the specimen was not received by the laboratory until 12/26/25. Urinalysis results were reported on 12/26/25, and urine culture and susceptibility results were reported on 12/29/25, showing Escherichia coli. A care conference note later described the resident as having a slight UTI and stated the doctor was aware. On 01/05/26, an RN contacted the CNP regarding the culture and susceptibility results, and later that day physician orders were entered for cephalexin 500 mg twice daily for seven days to treat the UTI. The LPN confirmed the urine sample collection was not timely, and the DON confirmed there were no orders in the medical record for the resident's urine collection, analysis, or culture and sensitivity.
Nonfunctional Front Entrance Doorbell and Lack of Entry Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the front entrance doorbell was functional, which had the potential to affect all 77 residents. Observations revealed the doorbell was missing a cover plate and did not ring when the button was pressed. There was also no signage posted with the facility telephone number to obtain assistance for entry. Multiple staff, including the Administrator, DON, and LPNs, were unaware that the doorbell was not working. The Director of Maintenance had not included the doorbell in routine checks and only became aware of the issue about a week prior, but no maintenance work order had been submitted. Staff interviews indicated inconsistent practices regarding locking the front entrance door at night, and there was no policy requiring the door to be locked during specific hours. The job description for the Plant Operations Manager required maintenance of facility equipment, but the doorbell had not been checked or repaired as part of these duties. The deficiency was identified through observation, staff interviews, and review of facility procedures.
Failure to Maintain Functioning Call Light System for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the call light system was functioning for all residents, resulting in 23 out of 77 residents being affected. Nine residents had no functioning call light, while an additional fourteen experienced intermittent functionality. Residents without working call lights were provided with hand bells as an alternative means of summoning assistance. Staff reported increasing the frequency of rounding for these residents, but there was no clear documentation on how often these rounds occurred. Several residents described having to rely on hand bells or even calling the facility by telephone to request help, with some stating that their call lights had been nonfunctional for weeks or even months. Interviews with staff, including LPNs, CNAs, and the Director of Maintenance, confirmed that the call light system on the north end of the building had not been working for approximately two and a half weeks, with some rooms experiencing intermittent issues. The Administrator acknowledged the problem and stated that service providers had been contacted for repair or replacement quotes, but no written documentation of these quotes was available. The maintenance staff indicated that the system was old and had a power issue, and some vendors reportedly refused to provide written estimates due to the age of the system. Policy and job description reviews revealed that while maintenance staff were responsible for keeping equipment in working order and obtaining contractor quotes, the facility's policies lacked specific guidelines for maintaining or repairing the call light system when it was not functioning. The policies only addressed providing hand bells and increasing staff rounds as interim measures, without detailing steps for timely repair or replacement of the system.
Expired Medical Devices on Crash Carts
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the crash carts, intended for emergency use, were stocked with non-expired medical devices, potentially affecting all 69 residents. During an observation with an LPN, it was found that the crash cart located in the nurses' station on the skilled nursing side contained expired items, including four 10 milliliter syringes, three 22 gauge angiocaths, two 20 gauge angiocaths, five intravenous start kits, and a sealed bottle of blood glucose test strips. Additionally, the crash cart in the locked dementia unit contained expired suction catheter kits and a sealed providone swab stick. The LPN verified these findings during the observation. The facility's undated policy on Emergency Crash Cart and Automated External Defibrillators stated that expired items should be replaced when applicable. This deficiency was investigated under Complaint Number OH00157697.
Improper Cleaning of Glucose Monitor Device
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper cleaning of a glucose monitor device after use, affecting three residents directly and potentially impacting 15 others. During an observation, an LPN used an alcohol swab, which was not the correct substance, to clean the glucose monitor after testing a resident. In another instance, an LPN did not clean the device between testing two residents. The facility's policy, which was undated, stated that the glucometer should be cleaned and disinfected after each use with a wipe pre-saturated with an EPA-registered healthcare disinfectant. This deficiency was investigated under a specific complaint number.
Failure to Assess and Treat Resident's Rash
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly assess and treat a resident's rash, affecting one out of three residents reviewed for a change in condition. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, depression, hypertension, muscle weakness, and a need for assistance with personal care, was identified as cognitively impaired and required staff assistance for all activities of daily living. Despite the rash being reported to the unit managers on 09/06/24, there was no documentation or assessment regarding the rash in the medical record for 09/06/24 and 09/07/24. It was only on 09/08/24 that the nurse on duty noted the rash and notified the on-call provider, who ordered Acyclovir medication. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the rash was reported to an LPN on 09/06/24, who then reported it to an LPN Supervisor, and subsequently to the DON. However, there was no documentation to support that the facility had identified, assessed, or obtained treatment orders for the rash until 09/08/24. The facility's policies on Notification of Changes and Change in a Resident's Condition or Status required notifying the resident's physician and documenting changes in the resident's condition, which were not followed in this case. This deficiency was investigated under Complaint Number OH00157697.
Failure to Maintain Safe Food Holding Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure food was served at safe holding temperatures, potentially affecting all 63 residents receiving food from the kitchen. During an observation of the tray line, it was noted that the meatballs were at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, the capris vegetables at 127 degrees Fahrenheit, and the white rice at 130 degrees Fahrenheit. These temperatures were below the required 135 degrees Fahrenheit for hot holding as per the facility's policy. The test tray left the kitchen and was later observed to have even lower temperatures, with the meatballs at 127 degrees Fahrenheit, the capris vegetables at 129 degrees Fahrenheit, and the white rice at 132 degrees Fahrenheit. Interviews with the Dietary Manager and District Manager revealed a lack of awareness and training regarding the appropriate hot holding temperatures. The Dietary Manager admitted to not knowing the required temperatures and needing to ask, while the District Manager acknowledged that they had not yet trained the Dietary Manager on conducting test trays. The facility's policy, dated February 2023, clearly stated that all foods should be held at temperatures greater than 135 degrees Fahrenheit for hot holding, which was not adhered to in this instance.
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 243 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 1 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Marion
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marion Valley Post Acute | 0.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Meadows Of Marion Health And Rehabilitation The | 1.4 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
| Marion Pointe | 1.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
| Harding Pointe | 1.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 19 | 0 |
| Presidential Post-acute | 2.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 19 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Marion Nursing & Rehab.
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.