Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around December 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 Pruitthealth- Ridgeway during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Kitchen Sanitation Deficiencies: The kitchen’s walk-in refrigerator floor and shelves, an electric slicer, and two stove top spill pans were observed unclean during inspection. The refrigerator had loose debris, dried spills, and black buildup in the corners, the slicer blade had dried food residue, and the spill pans had heavy dried food accumulation. The DM confirmed the items were not clean and described the expected cleaning frequency for each item.
Multiple cognitively impaired residents engaged in physical altercations, including scratching, hitting with closed hands, and slapping, on a secured and memory support unit. In several events, staff entered rooms or dining areas and observed one resident striking another, resulting in at least one skin tear and visible scratches, though no serious injuries were documented. One resident with a history of behavioral symptoms admitted to hitting another and expressed understanding after being told not to hit, yet the facility’s internal investigation initially recorded the event as unsubstantiated despite staff witness statements. Another resident with known socially inappropriate and aggressive behaviors slapped a wandering resident in the face after repeated room entries. The Administrator acknowledged that such incidents occurred frequently on the unit and that they usually substantiated these events as abuse, while also stating an expectation that all residents be free from abuse, including resident‑to‑resident abuse.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, right AKA, hemiplegia, and dependence for mobility and ADLs had a prior unwitnessed fall from bed with head involvement and was subsequently identified as high risk for falls, with the care plan directing staff to keep the bed in the lowest position. Surveyors later observed on multiple occasions that the resident’s bed was elevated rather than kept low, including after a CNA entered and exited the room without adjusting the bed. In interviews, an RN acknowledged the bed was not in the lowest position despite the fall risk, the CNA stated she only learned that day the resident was a fall risk and should have lowered the bed, and an LPN confirmed the bed should be kept low and that staff do not document bed position each shift.
Two residents with documented memory problems and dependence or need for assistance with eating were seated at dining tables where their tablemates were fed and finished their meals before they themselves were served or assisted. On two separate lunch meal occasions, staff focused on feeding one resident at the table while another remained in a reclined geri-chair with no meal service or feeding assistance for an extended period, only receiving help after the tablemate had finished eating and left the dining room. An LPN later confirmed that some residents were served late due to a delayed meal cart and lack of communication, and both the Dietary Manager and DON acknowledged that residents at the same table should be served at the same time as a matter of dignity.
Failure to complete PASRR resident reviews after new mental health diagnoses. The facility did not initiate or complete updated PASRR screening for two residents after diagnosis changes. One resident had a later diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type with hallucinations and an antipsychotic order, while another resident’s record later documented chronic bipolar disorder, mixed mood symptoms, and psychotropic treatment after an admission PASRR had shown no MI diagnosis. Staff, including the SSD, SW, Administrator, and DON, could not confirm that a new PASRR Level I had been submitted.
Meals were not consistently served hot to residents receiving trays in their rooms. Four cognitively intact residents reported that food often arrived cold, and one said staff told her they could not heat it up. On observation, hot foods left the kitchen at acceptable temps, but insulated dome lids were not fully covering plates after transport in an enclosed meal cart, and a test tray showed scrambled eggs at 88 F and grits at 98 F, both below palatable hot serving temps.
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions during meal service on the 200 Hall. CNAs were observed handling RTE food with bare hands and placing dirty trays on clean food carts, contrary to the 2017 FDA Food Code and facility policy. Staff interviews confirmed inconsistent adherence to these policies.
The facility failed to accurately post daily nurse staffing information, as required by policy, from late November 2024 to late January 2025. Instances included missing total hours worked, absence of RNs for required shifts, and blank entries for staff numbers and hours. The receptionist responsible for posting the information reported difficulties in obtaining the necessary data.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment had expressed a desire to be DNR, with signed documentation and physician orders reflecting this status. However, the resident's Care Plan and Face Sheet incorrectly documented them as Full Code. Interviews with facility staff revealed confusion and inconsistency regarding the resident's code status, contributing to the failure to honor the resident's advance directives.
A resident was found in a room with a soiled mattress and suspected blood stain on the floor, indicating a failure to maintain a clean and homelike environment. Despite facility policies requiring routine cleaning, it was unclear if the scheduled deep cleaning was completed. Staff interviews revealed communication gaps and a lack of adherence to cleaning protocols.
A facility failed to conduct a PASRR for a resident prior to admission, as required by federal regulations. The resident, admitted with severe neurocognitive disorders, had their PASRR Level I screening completed months after admission. Interviews revealed that the facility lacks a specific PASRR policy and relies on federal regulations, with the hospital responsible for initial screenings.
The facility did not review and revise the care plans for two residents to include specific activities based on their preferences. One resident, with mobility issues, was unaware of any activities, while another, requiring encouragement, reported no participation in activities. The Activity Director and DON confirmed the absence of documentation for activity engagement.
The facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities for two residents, as required by their policy. One resident with muscle weakness and amputations, and another with pulmonary edema and schizophrenia, reported not participating in any activities since admission. The Activity Director could not find documentation of their activity attendance, indicating a lack of adherence to the facility's policy.
A facility failed to implement physician orders for a resident's palm guards, intended to maintain or improve range of motion. The resident, in a persistent vegetative state with contractures, was observed without the prescribed palm guards, and staff were unaware of the orders. The DON confirmed that both CNAs and nurses are responsible for placing palm guards, but the facility lacked a specific policy for splints/devices.
A resident with a persistent vegetative state and other conditions had two contradicting orders for enteral tube feedings, leading to inconsistent feeding times. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the resident's feeding orders, with discrepancies observed in the start times of the tube feedings. The facility's policy required verification of inappropriate orders, but this was not followed, resulting in a deficiency in care.
A facility failed to maintain a medication administration error rate below 5 percent, with a 10 percent error rate observed. An RN incorrectly primed insulin pens for two residents by keeping the cap on the needle and holding the pen horizontally, contrary to facility policy and instructions. This incorrect method was observed in three out of thirty opportunities, contributing to the high error rate.
Kitchen Sanitation Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to keep the kitchen’s walk-in refrigerator floor and shelves, the electric slicer, and two stove top spill pans clean. During the initial kitchen inspection, the walk-in refrigerator floor was observed with loose debris and dried spills, and the edges and corners under shelving units had a heavy buildup of black-colored substances that could be wiped away with a paper towel. Two metal shelves in the refrigerator had plastic covers that were unclean with a black moldlike substance, and boxes of food were stored directly on those plastic shelf covers. The kitchen’s electric slicer was covered and ready for use, but the blade was observed to have a dried food substance on it. Two stove top spill pans were also observed to be unclean with a heavy accumulation of dried food and dried food spills. During interview, the Dietary Manager confirmed the refrigerator floor and shelves, slicer, and stove top spill pans were not clean and stated the refrigerator floor and shelves should be cleaned daily, the slicer after each use, and the stove top spill pans weekly or as needed.
Failure to Prevent and Substantiate Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect multiple residents from physical abuse in the form of resident‑to‑resident altercations. Facility records and staff interviews show that one resident with dementia and mood disorder (R66) was involved in three separate physical conflicts on the secured unit. In one incident, a CNA entered a room and observed R66 scratching another severely cognitively impaired resident (R84) on the arm, resulting in a skin tear. In a second incident, an LPN at the nurses’ station saw R66 and another moderately cognitively impaired resident (R136) trying to pass through a doorway at the same time; R66 began flailing her arms and hit the other resident with open hands, after which the other resident struck R66 in the face with her fists. In a third incident, a CNA entered a room and saw R66 and another severely cognitively impaired resident (R120) grabbing each other; R66 had scratches on her face and blood on her mouth, and the other resident had scratches on her chest. Additional incidents involved other residents engaging in physical aggression toward one another. On one occasion, a resident with bipolar disorder (R93) approached a severely cognitively impaired resident (R125) who was seated in the dining room and struck her on the back multiple times with a closed hand. Staff witness statements documented that the striking was forceful and occurred multiple times, and progress notes recorded that the aggressor admitted to hitting the other resident and stated she understood after being told that hitting others was not acceptable. The facility’s internal investigation of this event was initially documented as unsubstantiated, despite staff accounts that the hitting occurred and that police were contacted for an incident number. The Administrator later acknowledged that this incident should have been substantiated as abuse because it happened. Another incident involved a severely cognitively impaired wandering resident (R115) and the same moderately cognitively impaired resident (R136) on the secured Memory Support Unit. Facility investigation notes indicated that R115 repeatedly wandered into R136’s room, prompting R136 to yell for her to get out. Staff redirected the wandering resident several times, and after the last entry into the room, staff seated R115 in the dining room. R136 then came from behind and slapped R115 in the face. The care plan for R136 already identified socially inappropriate and aggressive behaviors and directed staff to provide comfort measures when such behaviors began. The Administrator stated that residents on the Memory Support Unit “fight back there a lot” and that the facility usually substantiated such allegations because they occurred, noting that some residents did not like others in their personal space. Across these events, surveyors determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse by other residents.
Failure to Maintain Low Bed Position for High Fall-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a safe environment and implement fall-prevention interventions as care planned for a resident with significant physical and cognitive impairments. The resident had diagnoses including right above-knee amputation, right hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, cognitive communication deficit, difficulty walking, and right-hand contracture. The resident sustained an unwitnessed fall from bed with head involvement, resulting in a hematoma to the right forehead and right eye, and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Subsequent assessments, including a Morse Fall Scale, identified the resident as high risk for falls, and the care plan was updated to direct staff to keep the bed in the lowest position due to the prior fall and the resident’s right AKA. Despite this care plan directive, multiple observations over two days showed the resident lying in bed with the bed elevated rather than in the lowest position. A CNA entered and exited the resident’s room without lowering the bed, and follow-up observations later that day and the next morning confirmed the bed remained elevated. During interviews, an RN acknowledged that the bed was not in the lowest position despite the resident’s fall risk and stated it should be as low as the mechanical bed would allow. The CNA reported that she only learned that day that the resident was a fall risk and that fall interventions were outlined in the care plan, including keeping the bed in the lowest position. Another LPN confirmed that the resident was at risk for falls and that the bed should be in the lowest position, and also stated that staff do not document bed position each shift.
Failure to Serve Tablemates Their Meals at the Same Time, Affecting Resident Dignity
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that residents seated at the same dining table were served and assisted with their meals at the same time, affecting two residents reviewed for dignity in dining. One resident, identified as having short- and long-term memory problems and coded as dependent with eating on a significant change MDS, was observed seated in a reclined geri-chair at a dining table with her uneaten lunch tray in front of her while a CNA fed her tablemate. From 12:52 PM to 1:15 PM, the CNA continued feeding the tablemate while the dependent resident received no assistance with her meal. Only after the tablemate finished eating and was assisted out of the dining room did the CNA begin feeding the dependent resident at 1:17 PM, completing the feeding at 1:34 PM. The CNA confirmed that the dependent resident was served and assisted with her meal only after her tablemate had finished and left the dining room. A second resident, also documented on a quarterly MDS as having short- and long-term memory problems, was similarly affected on another day. This resident was seated in a reclined geri-chair next to the dining table without having been served a lunch meal, while staff fed the resident’s tablemate. From 12:35 PM to 12:45 PM, staff continued feeding the tablemate as the second resident remained without a meal and watched staff feed the tablemate. After staff finished feeding the tablemate and assisted her from the dining room at 12:47 PM, the second resident did not receive her lunch tray until 1:07 PM. The 400-hall unit manager (an LPN) confirmed that this resident was served later than her tablemate and explained that a second meal cart for the hallway arrived late due to a mix-up in the kitchen that was not communicated to hall staff. The Dietary Manager and the DON both acknowledged that residents seated at the same table should be served at the same time to promote dignity.
Failure to Complete PASRR Resident Review After New Mental Health Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a required PASRR resident review when a resident’s diagnosis changed. The report states that when a resident develops a new mental health diagnosis or other significant change in condition, a new or updated PASRR Level I screening must be completed and, if indicated, a Level II evaluation must be triggered. The facility did not initiate or complete a new PASRR after diagnosis changes for two residents, R6 and R9. For R9, the record showed an admission date of 05/02/18 and a PASRR Level I screening dated 05/02/18 indicating no mental illness diagnosis at admission. Later records showed diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and an order for Seroquel dated 12/05/24 for that diagnosis. The care plan also documented hallucinations and seeing animals related to schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. During interview, the SSD stated R9 did not have a PASRR and confirmed that a new Level I PASRR was not initiated after the new diagnosis. For R6, the hospital PASRR Level I dated 11/06/24 indicated no mental illness diagnosis and no further evaluation was recommended. R6 was admitted on 03/12/25 with non-Alzheimer’s dementia and moderate cognitive impairment, and later a psychiatry note dated 04/15/25 documented symptoms consistent with chronic bipolar disorder, current mixed episode, major neurocognitive disorder, alcohol abuse disorder, and likely late onset Alzheimer’s disease, with Depakote ordered for mood stabilization and behavioral symptoms. The SSD, Social Worker, Administrator, and DON each stated they could not confirm that a new PASRR Level I screening had been submitted for resident review after the new bipolar diagnosis, and the DON stated the facility did not have a policy and procedure regarding PASRRs.
Meals Served at Improper Temperature
Penalty
Summary
Food was not consistently served at a palatable, hot temperature to residents receiving meals in their rooms. The facility’s policy stated the Dietary Manager or designee was responsible for ensuring food reached and maintained proper temperature prior to tray assembly and that food would be served at palatable temperatures. During a resident group interview, four cognitively intact residents voiced complaints that meals were not served hot to their rooms. Review of the MDS showed these residents had BIMS scores of 14/15, 15/15, 15/15, and 15/15, indicating they were cognitively intact. Two residents stated their food often arrived cold and that staff told them they could not heat it up, and another resident said meals were not hot when they came to the room during a flu outbreak. During observation of a requested test tray on the 300 hallway, hot foods were acceptable on the kitchen tray line before being placed on heated plates and covered with insulated dome lids in an enclosed meal delivery cart. When the cart arrived on the hallway, nursing staff began serving meals, and many of the insulated dome lids were observed not completely covering resident meal plates, which the Dietary Manager confirmed. After delivery, the test tray was removed and the scrambled eggs measured 88 degrees F and tasted cold, while the grits measured 98 degrees F and tasted warm but needed to be hotter. The Dietary Manager agreed with these findings and stated the lids had likely slid off during transport over a slightly elevated area of flooring at the beginning of the hallway.
Sanitation Deficiency in Meal Service
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure food was served under sanitary conditions during the meal service on the 200 Hall. Observations revealed that a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA2) handled ready-to-eat (RTE) food with bare hands, which is against the 2017 FDA Food Code and the facility's policy. CNA2 was observed setting up meal trays for residents, touching food items such as rolls and sandwiches with bare hands, and not using suitable utensils as required. This action could lead to contamination of food and potential foodborne illness outbreaks. Additionally, another CNA (CNA1) was observed placing a dirty tray on a clean food cart and then serving a clean tray to a resident without sanitizing her hands. The food cart was left open during the service, which is against the facility's policy. Interviews with CNA1 and a Registered Nurse (RN2) confirmed that the policy of not placing dirty trays on the food cart is not consistently followed, and staff sometimes struggle to adhere to this policy. CNA2 also admitted to not being aware of the prohibition against touching food with bare hands.
Inaccurate Daily Nurse Staffing Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of daily posted nurse staffing information, which is required to be visible and accessible to residents and visitors. The facility's policy mandates that daily nursing hours, including the total number of staff and their working hours, be posted prominently. However, from November 26, 2024, to January 26, 2025, there were multiple instances where the staffing information was incomplete or missing. Specific deficiencies included missing total hours worked, absence of Registered Nurses (RNs) for required shifts, and blank entries for actual staff numbers and hours worked. The report highlights several specific dates where the staffing information was not accurately posted. For example, on December 5, 2024, and January 8, 2025, the actual number of staff and total hours worked were not documented. Additionally, on January 18, 2025, and subsequent days, there were no records of staff numbers or hours worked. The receptionist, responsible for posting this information, reported difficulties in obtaining the necessary data despite multiple requests, indicating a breakdown in communication and process adherence within the facility.
Failure to Accurately Document Advance Directives
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately document a resident's advance directives, leading to a discrepancy between the resident's stated wishes and the documentation in their medical records. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment, had expressed a desire to be Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and had signed documentation and physician orders reflecting this status. However, the resident's Care Plan and Face Sheet incorrectly documented the resident as Full Code, indicating a failure to update and maintain accurate records of the resident's advance directives. Interviews with facility staff, including a CNA, LPN, Admission staff, Social Worker, and the Director of Nursing, revealed confusion and inconsistency regarding the resident's code status. The CNA was unaware of the DNR status, while the LPN, Admission staff, and Social Worker all stated the resident was Full Code. The resident's representative was also uncertain and needed to verify the status. This lack of clarity and communication among staff members contributed to the failure to honor the resident's advance directives as per their wishes.
Failure to Maintain a Clean and Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a clean and homelike environment for a resident, identified as R36, who was observed in a room with an unkempt and visibly soiled mattress. The mattress had crumbs and a brown, crusty substance on it, and there was a noticeable stain, suspected to be blood, on the floor near the bed. The facility's policy requires routine and consistent housekeeping services, including monthly deep cleaning of resident rooms and additional cleaning as needed. However, it was unclear if the scheduled deep cleaning for R36's room was completed as planned. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of communication and adherence to cleaning protocols. The Housekeeping Supervisor stated that CNAs are responsible for notifying housekeeping of any concerns, and that mattresses are scheduled for monthly cleaning. The Director of Nursing confirmed the existence of a deep cleaning schedule and communication methods for reporting cleaning issues, but was unaware of the condition of R36's room and mattress. This indicates a breakdown in the facility's procedures for maintaining a clean and comfortable environment for residents.
Failure to Conduct PASRR Prior to Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) prior to admission. The resident, identified as R101, was admitted with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, vascular dementia with severe agitation, and other neurocognitive disorders. Despite these conditions, the PASRR Level I screening form was only completed on July 29, 2024, well after the resident's admission date of February 16, 1959. This indicates a lapse in the required preadmission screening process as per federal regulations. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the social worker typically runs an ICD 10 report monthly to determine if a Level II screening is warranted, and it was noted that the hospital is responsible for completing the Level I PASRR prior to admission. However, the Director of Nursing (DON) admitted that the facility does not have a specific PASRR policy and relies on federal regulations. The DON also mentioned that the resident is on hospice care and has experienced an overall decline, which may have contributed to the oversight in the PASRR process.
Failure to Implement Comprehensive Activity Plans for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Plan of Care was reviewed and revised for two residents, R29 and R100, to include goals and interventions for an ongoing program of activities based on their preferences. R29, admitted with diagnoses including muscle weakness and bilateral lower limb amputations, had a care plan that identified a preference for activities related to his prior lifestyle but did not include any specific interventions or preferences. During an interview, R29 expressed unawareness of any activities and stated he had not been invited to participate in any. Similarly, R100, admitted with conditions such as acute pulmonary edema and schizophrenia, had a care plan indicating a preference for one-on-one activities and required encouragement to participate. However, the plan only included a general intervention for staff to verbally encourage participation. R100 reported not having participated in any activities or received one-on-one attention. The Activity Director and the Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of documentation to show that either resident had engaged in activities since their admission.
Failure to Provide Activities for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities designed to meet the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of residents, as required by their policy. Specifically, two residents, R29 and R100, were not engaged in any activities since their admission. R29, admitted with diagnoses including muscle weakness and bilateral lower limb amputations, reported not being invited to any activities or receiving one-on-one activities. Similarly, R100, with conditions such as acute pulmonary edema and schizophrenia, stated she had not participated in any activities or received individual attention. The Activity Director, a new employee, was unable to find documentation of activity attendance for these residents, indicating a lack of adherence to the facility's policy. The policy mandates that the center should offer a variety of recreational programs tailored to residents' interests and capabilities, with participation recorded in the Electronic Health Record. However, no such records were found for R29 and R100, highlighting a deficiency in the facility's activity program implementation.
Failure to Implement Physician Orders for Palm Guards
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to carry out physician orders for a resident's splint/palm guard, which was intended to maintain or improve the resident's range of motion (ROM). The resident, who was in a persistent vegetative state and had contractures in the right elbow, right hand, and left hand, was dependent on others for all aspects of care. The resident's care plan included the application of palm guards to both hands daily during the day shift for 8 hours, as well as passive range of motion exercises. However, during observations, the resident was found without the prescribed palm guards, and nursing staff were unaware of the orders, indicating a lapse in following the care plan. Interviews with nursing staff revealed a lack of awareness regarding the resident's orders for palm guards, with one nurse stating that they typically used rolled towels for positioning instead. Another nurse confirmed the existence of the orders and placed the palm guards on the resident after being informed. The Director of Nursing stated that both CNAs and nurses are responsible for placing palm guards and have access to the care plans and orders, yet the facility did not have a specific policy for splints/devices. This oversight had the potential to cause further decrease in the resident's ROM and/or pain.
Inconsistent Tube Feeding Orders for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident receiving enteral tube feedings was provided with appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications. The resident, who was in a persistent vegetative state and had conditions such as dysphagia, gastroparesis, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease, had two contradicting orders for enteral tube feedings. The facility's policy required that any inappropriate orders be verified with the attending physician, but this was not adhered to in the case of the resident. Observations revealed discrepancies in the start times of the tube feedings, with the feed being labeled and dated with different start times on consecutive days. Interviews with staff, including a Registered Nurse (RN), the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Dietitian, highlighted a lack of awareness and communication regarding the resident's feeding orders. The RN was unaware of the variations in orders and stated that efforts are made to reconcile orders weekly. The DON emphasized the expectation for nursing staff to clarify discrepancies with providers, but was unaware of the multiple orders. The Dietitian confirmed the current feeding order and noted an increase in the feed rate, but was uncertain about the change in the feeding schedule. This lack of coordination and communication among staff led to the deficiency in providing appropriate care for the resident with a feeding tube.
Insulin Administration Errors Due to Incorrect Priming
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication administration error rate below 5 percent, as evidenced by a 10 percent error rate in insulin administration. Specifically, the insulin flex pens for two residents were not primed correctly prior to administration. The facility's policy on insulin injections, revised on 07/18/2024, requires that insulin pens be primed by dialing 2 units and pressing the button until insulin secretes from the needle. However, during observations, a registered nurse (RN) was seen priming the insulin pens with the cap on the needle and holding the pen horizontally, which is contrary to the facility's policy and the instructions from The Institute of Family Health. During the observations, the RN prepared insulin injections for two residents using Novolin 70/30 Kwik Pen, Lantus, and Humalog pens. In each instance, the RN primed the pens incorrectly by keeping the cap on the needle and holding the pen horizontally, rather than pointing the needle upwards as required. When questioned by the surveyor, the RN admitted to feeling nervous and confirmed that she had primed the pens incorrectly. This incorrect priming method was observed in three out of thirty opportunities, contributing to the facility's medication administration error rate exceeding the acceptable threshold.
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 32 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 3 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 Ridgeway
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ridgeway Manor Healthcare Center | 8.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 13 | 0 |
| Springdale Healthcare Center | 8.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 8 | 3 |
| Kershaw Health Karesh Long Term Care | 8.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Pruitthealth- Blythewood | 15.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Wildewood Downs | 18 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Pruitthealth- Ridgeway.
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.