Above 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 The Center At Parmer during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident admitted with SOB and requiring continuous O2 therapy had a care plan that only noted SOB and did not include the ordered respiratory interventions, including continuous NC oxygen, titration parameters, or tubing and nebulizer mask changes. During observation, the O2 machine was on but the NC was on the resident’s lap, and the resident said she received O2 therapy but did not know whether staff changed the equipment as ordered. Staff gave mixed responses about who reviewed and revised care plans, but the respiratory orders were not reflected in the care plan.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of a fall had a care plan that was not updated to include all PCP-recommended fall interventions after an unwitnessed fall. Although the plan included fall mats, safety rounds, lighting, and call-don’t-fall signs, it did not include lowering the bed to the ground, and staff were observed leaving the room without doing so. Interviews showed inconsistent understanding of who was responsible for reviewing and revising care plans, despite facility policy assigning that role to the IDT.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, a high fall risk, and diagnoses including wedge compression fracture and low back pain had an unwitnessed fall and reported hitting his head. Staff documented the fall and noted neurological checks were initiated, but the record contained no evidence that the required neuro monitoring was completed. During survey observation, staff also left the resident in bed without lowering it to the floor, and the family member said staff often needed reminders to do so.
A facility failed to provide safe respiratory care for two residents receiving oxygen therapy. Staff did not bag nasal cannulas, CPAP masks, and tubing when not in use, and the MAR/TAR lacked documentation of the ordered oxygen flow rates for multiple shifts. Observations showed one resident with her NC on the floor and another with her NC on her lap while the oxygen machine remained on, and staff interviews confirmed that nurses and CNAs were responsible for storing the equipment and documenting oxygen liters in the TAR.
Failure to implement a fall intervention for a high-risk resident: A resident with severe cognitive impairment, a recent fall, and a care plan for fall precautions had fall mats, a call don't fall sign, and adequate lighting in place, but a CNA left the room after care without lowering the bed to the lowest position. Staff interviews showed they understood fall interventions were their responsibility, and the DON stated the facility did not have an accidents and supervision policy and procedure.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and protein-calorie malnutrition had a 5% or greater weight loss, but the facility did not complete a significant change MDS within the required timeframe. The record also showed missing weekly weight documentation despite an order for regular weights, and staff interviews confirmed that CNAs weighed residents while nurses were expected to document the weights in the TAR and leadership oversaw the process.
A resident with paraplegia and other complex conditions did not receive scheduled catheter care for over two hours past the ordered time, resulting in significant pain and discomfort. The delay occurred because staff prioritized other residents' needs, and there was a lack of timely communication and delegation. The resident repeatedly requested assistance, and the procedure was eventually performed by an LPN, but not documented at the correct time. Facility policy requiring prompt response to toileting needs was not followed.
A resident with paraplegia and other complex conditions did not receive scheduled catheter care on time, resulting in significant pain and a request for pain medication. Nursing staff provided the care approximately 2.5 hours late, but inaccurately documented the time in the MAR. Multiple staff interviews confirmed the delay, lack of communication during shift change, and failure to document the actual time of care.
The facility did not promptly report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft, nor did it communicate the results of its investigation to the proper authorities as required.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions was discharged without receiving a written 30-day notice, reasons for discharge, or information about appeal rights. The resident's representative and the Ombudsman were also not notified in writing, and staff interviews confirmed a lack of compliance with facility policy and regulatory requirements.
The facility failed to implement comprehensive care plans for three residents, specifically regarding transfer assistance. One resident with a hip fracture and cognitive impairment required substantial assistance, but the care plan lacked details. Another resident, post-stroke, needed total dependence for transfers, yet the care plan did not specify the use of a mechanical lift. A third resident, with intact cognition but medical conditions affecting mobility, experienced inconsistent staff support during transfers due to unclear care plan documentation.
A facility failed to transmit a Discharge MDS assessment for a resident within the required timeframe. The resident, who had conditions including intervertebral disc disorder and hyponatremia, was discharged, but the MDS was not encoded or transmitted due to the MDS coordinator's absence. This oversight affected recently discharged residents at risk of untimely assessment transmission.
A facility failed to provide a comprehensive activity program tailored to residents' preferences, leading to boredom and dissatisfaction among residents. The activity calendars for September and October 2024 were limited, and residents reported not receiving them. The facility lacked an activity director for a period, contributing to the deficiency. Residents expressed a need for more engagement and stimulation, which was not being met.
A facility failed to provide aseptic tracheostomy care for a resident. An LVN contaminated the sterile field by improperly handling normal saline and did not clear the resident's airway before inserting the inner cannula. The facility's care plan lacked specific guidance on tracheostomy care frequency, contributing to the deficiency.
A facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program during tracheostomy care for a resident with encephalopathy, HIV, and tracheostomy status. The LVN did not follow aseptic techniques, using non-sterile saline and failing to clear a mucus plug before inserting the inner cannula. The DON confirmed the breach in procedure, which could risk resident infections.
Care plan lacked respiratory interventions for a resident on oxygen therapy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one sampled resident with shortness of breath. The resident was admitted with a diagnosis that included shortness of breath, had a BIMS score of 13/15 indicating cognitive intactness, and her admission MDS showed that she required oxygen therapy on admission and while a resident. The resident’s order summary reflected a verbal order to change the nebulizer mask and oxygen tubing every Sunday at bedtime and as needed, keep oxygen on continuously at 1 to 5 liters per minute via nasal cannula, titrate to maintain oxygen saturation at or above 88% every shift and as needed, and allow therapy to titrate as needed for shortness of breath or decreased oxygen saturation. However, the resident’s care plan, completed on 01/17/26, only showed that she would get shortness of breath and did not include interventions related to the oxygen and respiratory orders. During observation and interview, the resident’s oxygen machine was on in her room, but her nasal cannula was on her lap. She stated she was receiving oxygen therapy for shortness of breath every shift and daily, and said she did not observe and did not know whether staff changed her oxygen tubing and nebulizer masks when she did not use the equipment. Staff interviews showed differing responses about who reviewed and revised care plans, including CNA, LPN, RN, DON, ADON, MDS, case manager, and IDT references, but the care plan itself did not document the respiratory interventions ordered for the resident.
Care Plan Not Updated After Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan within 7 days of completion of the comprehensive assessment for one sampled resident, and failed to revise the resident’s care plan to include all fall-risk interventions recommended by the PCP after an unwitnessed fall. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including wedge compression fracture, low back pain, and altered mental status. The 5-day MDS showed a BIMS score of 7/15, indicating severe cognitive impairment, and Section J reflected no falls since admission/reentry. After the resident’s unwitnessed fall, an RN documented notifying the PCP of the change in condition. The PCP recommended increased frequent monitoring, placement of fall mats, education on using the call light to prevent falls, and keeping the bed low to the ground. The resident’s care plan, initiated earlier in the admission, identified him as a high-risk faller and noted the fall, but the listed interventions included call-don’t-fall signs, safety rounds, fall mats at bedside, adequate lighting, and moving slowly with transfers and position changes. The care plan did not include the PCP’s recommendation to lower the bed to the ground. During observation, the resident was in bed with fall mats on both sides and a call-don’t-fall sign in the room, but the bed was not lowered to the ground before staff left the room. The resident’s family member stated the resident had fallen to the ground at the facility and that staff did not lower the bed to the ground before leaving, requiring frequent reminders. Interviews with multiple CNAs, LPNs, RNs, the Weekend Supervisor, the DON, the ADM, and MDS Coordinators showed inconsistent responses about who reviewed and revised care plans, while the facility policy stated the interdisciplinary team was responsible for developing and revising the care plan and that fall prevention interventions such as a low bed should be considered for high-risk residents.
Failure to Complete Neurological Monitoring After Unwitnessed Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the resident’s care plan after an unwitnessed fall. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including wedge compression fracture, low back pain, and altered mental status, and his MDS showed severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 7/15. His care plan identified him as a high fall risk and included interventions such as call-don’t-fall signs, safety rounds, fall mats, adequate lighting, and slow position changes. After the resident’s unwitnessed fall, staff documented that he was found lying on his back next to the bed and reported that he had hit his head during the fall and had chronic back pain. The facility’s records showed that neurological checks were initiated per protocol, but there was no record that neurological evaluations were actually completed after the fall. The physician note later stated the resident was neurologically at baseline, denied nausea, headache, and vision changes, and would continue to be monitored. During survey observations, the resident was in bed with fall mats on both sides and a call-don’t-fall sign in the room, but staff left the room without lowering the bed to the ground. The resident’s family member stated staff did not lower the bed before leaving and that they often had to remind staff. Interviews with the physician, DON, and ADM showed they expected neurological monitoring after an unwitnessed fall and that the nurses documented it on flow sheets and uploaded it later, but the facility could not produce documentation showing the neurological checks were completed for this resident.
Respiratory Equipment Not Stored Properly and Oxygen Flow Rates Not Documented
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for two residents who required oxygen therapy. For one resident, the record showed diagnoses including acute respiratory failure, asthma, pneumonia, and COVID-19, and the admission MDS indicated she was cognitively intact and required oxygen therapy. Her care plan and physician order required continuous oxygen at 1 to 5 liters per minute through a nasal cannula, with titration to maintain saturation at or above 88%. Review of her January 2026 MAR/TAR showed multiple shifts where the liters per minute were not documented, including 13 entries without the ordered oxygen flow rate. For the second resident, the admission record showed a diagnosis of shortness of breath, and the admission MDS indicated she was cognitively intact and required oxygen therapy. Her care plan reflected shortness of breath, and her physician order required continuous oxygen at 1 to 5 liters per minute through a nasal cannula, with titration as needed. Review of her January 2026 MAR/TAR showed 56 entries where the liters per minute were not documented across multiple shifts, and progress notes did not contain documentation related to the missing oxygen flow rate entries. During observations, one resident was seen with her nasal cannula on her lap while the oxygen machine was on, and the other resident was seen with her nasal cannula on the ground while the oxygen machine was on. The first resident also had her CPAP mask on her nightstand and her nasal cannula hanging on her wheelchair back support. She stated staff did not bag her nasal cannula and CPAP masks when not in use. Multiple staff members stated that nurses and CNAs were responsible for bagging oxygen equipment when not in use and for documenting oxygen liters in the TAR, and the DON and ADM stated they expected staff to follow physician orders and store oxygen equipment when not in use. The facility’s oxygen tubing policy stated oxygen tubing should be changed if dropped on the floor and that the record should include the prescribed flow rates and ongoing respiratory monitoring.
Failure to Implement Fall Intervention for a High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for one sampled resident, R#63. R#63 was admitted with diagnoses including wedge compression fracture, low back pain, and altered mental status. His 5-Day MDS showed a BIMS score of 7/15, indicating severe cognitive impairment, and his care plan identified him as a high risk faller with a fall on 01/13/26. The care plan included interventions such as call don't fall signs, safety rounds, fall mats at bedside, adequate lighting, and transferring/changing positions slowly. After R#63's fall, the PCP recommended increasing frequent monitoring, placing fall mats, educating him on using the call light, and keeping the bed low to the ground. The facility's change in condition evaluation also reflected the recommendation to keep the bed low to the ground. However, the care plan did not include lowering the bed to the ground as an intervention. During observation on 01/28/26 at 11:47 a.m., R#63 was lying in bed with fall mats on each side, a call don't fall sign in the room, and adequate lighting present, but a female CNA left the room after providing care without lowering the bed to the ground. Interviews showed staff understood that fall interventions were to be implemented and overseen by nursing staff, the DON, and the IDT team. The resident's family stated staff did not lower the bed to the ground before leaving the room and that they often had to remind staff. The DON stated the facility did not have an accidents and supervision policy and procedure. The facility's fall prevention policy stated that high-risk patients should have low bed interventions considered and that post-fall interventions should be determined to prevent further falls.
Failure to Complete Significant Change Assessment and Document Weekly Weights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a significant change assessment within 14 days after determining that a resident had 5% or more significant weight loss. The resident had diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, cognitive communication deficit, protein-calorie malnutrition, and dementia, and her admission MDS showed a BIMS score of 7/15 with severe cognitive impairment. Her care plan identified her as at risk for inability to maintain nutrition, and staff noted severe malnutrition in a December note. The resident’s weight records showed 130 lbs on 12/28/25 and 121 lbs on 01/04/26, which triggered a warning notification for 5% or more weight change. Review of the record showed no subsequent documented weights after that point, despite a verbal order for daily weights every Sunday starting 12/28/25. The MAR/TAR for January 2026 showed only one documented weight on 01/18/26 at 121.1 lbs, and the weight summary reflected the same gap in documentation. During interviews, multiple CNAs, nurses, the Weekend Supervisor, the DON, MDS Coordinator D, and the ADM stated that residents were weighed weekly and that nurses documented weights in the TAR, with leadership overseeing the process. The DON and MDS Coordinator D also stated that the ADON and DON identified changes in residents’ condition and determined whether a significant change in status assessment was needed. The facility’s MDS policy stated that staff were responsible for completion of the MDS process, but it did not reflect the regulatory timeframe for completing a significant change in condition assessment.
Delayed Catheter Care Resulting in Resident Discomfort and Pain
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with paraplegia, major depressive disorder, and ankylosing spondylitis did not receive scheduled in-and-out catheter care for approximately 2.5 hours past the ordered time. The resident was care planned for self-catheterization, but facility staff were responsible for performing the procedure as the resident was unable or unwilling to do it independently. Medical orders specified catheterization every six hours, but on the day in question, there was no documentation of the 4:00 pm catheterization, and the next recorded care was at 10:00 pm, with staff interviews confirming the procedure was actually performed around 6:30 pm. The resident reported significant discomfort and pain due to the delay, stating he requested catheter care multiple times without timely response. He described being in 'massive pain' and required a pain pill for relief. Staff interviews corroborated that the resident expressed discomfort and that the delay in catheter care was due to staff attending to other residents in pain. The ADON acknowledged being informed of the resident's request but was occupied with other urgent care needs, and there was a lack of communication and delegation to ensure the resident's catheter care was completed as ordered. Documentation was inconsistent, with the LPN who performed the catheterization not recording the actual time of care, instead documenting it at the next scheduled time. Multiple staff members, including the DON and RNs, recognized that orders should be followed and that delays could result in resident discomfort and pain. The facility's policy emphasized prompt response to resident requests for toileting assistance to promote dignity and quality of life, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Failure to Accurately Document and Timely Provide Catheter Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the medical record for a resident was complete and accurately documented, specifically regarding the timing and documentation of catheter care. The resident, a forty-one-year-old male with paraplegia, major depressive disorder, and ankylosing spondylitis, was care planned for self-catheterization with nursing staff monitoring and documenting intake and output. Physician orders required in-and-out catheterization every six hours at set times. On the date in question, the Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected catheter care at 4:00 am, 10:00 am, and 10:00 pm, but there was no entry for the 4:00 pm scheduled time. Interviews and record reviews revealed that the resident actually received catheter care at approximately 6:30 pm, not at the documented 10:00 pm time. The resident reported experiencing significant pain due to the delay in catheter care, stating that he requested assistance multiple times and only received care about 2.5 hours after the scheduled time. He also reported needing pain medication due to the discomfort. Multiple staff interviews confirmed the delay, with one LPN stating she provided catheter care at 6:30 pm after the resident complained of pain. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and other staff acknowledged that the resident's care was delayed due to attending to other residents in pain, and that the catheter care was not documented as a late entry but instead was inaccurately recorded as being performed at 10:00 pm in the MAR. Further interviews with nursing and administrative staff confirmed that the delay in catheter care was not communicated during shift change, and that the nurse responsible did not document the actual time of care. Staff also discussed the potential for discomfort and pain when catheter care is delayed, and acknowledged that orders should be followed and documentation should be accurate. The facility's policy emphasized the importance of prompt response to resident needs and maintaining dignity, but the events described showed a failure to meet these standards in this instance.
Failure to Timely Report Suspected Abuse, Neglect, or Theft
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and did not report the results of the investigation to the proper authorities. This deficiency was identified based on the facility's lack of prompt action in notifying the appropriate agencies when an incident of suspected abuse, neglect, or theft occurred. The report indicates that the required notifications and investigation results were not communicated as mandated.
Failure to Provide Required Written Discharge Notice and Appeal Rights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a written notice of discharge, including the reasons for the move and the right to appeal, to a resident and her representative at least 30 days prior to discharge. The resident, who had severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical diagnoses including hemiplegia, hemiparesis, dysphagia, and depression, was dependent on assistance for health literacy and functional cognition. Despite care plan requirements for communication and involvement in discharge planning, there was no documentation in the resident's progress notes or electronic health records indicating that a written discharge notice was given to the resident, her representative, or the Ombudsman. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of understanding and compliance with the regulatory requirement to provide a 30-day written discharge notice. The care manager (CM) and assistant director of nursing (ADON) both acknowledged that the notice was not provided, and the CM admitted to not knowing the requirement to notify the resident, representative, and Ombudsman in writing. The resident's representative reported learning about the discharge from a medical equipment provider rather than the facility and stated that neither she nor the resident received information about the right to appeal the discharge or the appeal process. Facility policy reviews confirmed the requirement for a 30-day written notice of discharge, including information on the reason for discharge, effective date, location, contact information for the Ombudsman, state survey agency, appeal rights, and resources for assistance. The policy also specified that the Ombudsman must be notified before discharge is initiated. Despite these policies, the facility did not provide the required notifications or documentation, resulting in a deficiency related to discharge planning and resident rights.
Deficiency in Comprehensive Care Planning for Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan to meet the medical and nursing needs of three residents, specifically regarding the assistance required during transfers. This deficiency was identified through observations, interviews, and record reviews. For Resident #235, the care plan did not specify the level of assistance needed for transfers, despite the resident's cognitive impairment and physical limitations due to a right hip fracture. The resident required substantial assistance with activities of daily living and was dependent on others for transfers, yet the care plan lacked detailed interventions. Resident #242's care plan also failed to indicate the necessary assistance for transfers. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment and physical limitations following a stroke, required total dependence for transfers. However, the care plan did not specify the use of a mechanical lift or the level of assistance needed, which was crucial given the resident's condition and reliance on a wheelchair for mobility. Similarly, Resident #289's care plan did not accurately reflect the assistance needed for transfers. Although the resident had intact cognition, he required assistance from one or two staff members for transfers due to his medical conditions, including acute congestive heart failure and unsteadiness on feet. The care plan lacked specific details on the transfer assistance required, leading to inconsistencies in staff support during transfers. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clear communication and documentation regarding transfer status, which could result in negative outcomes such as falls.
Failure to Transmit Discharge MDS Timely
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to transmit a resident assessment within the required time frame for a discharged resident, identified as Resident #61. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including intervertebral disc disorder with radiculopathy, lower back pain, and hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia. Although the Admission MDS was completed and accepted, the Discharge MDS assessment was not initiated, coded, or transmitted by the required date. This oversight was discovered during a record review, which revealed that the Discharge MDS had not been encoded or transmitted as of July 26, 2024. The MDS coordinator, responsible for encoding and timely transmission of the MDS records, was unavailable due to personal reasons, leading to the delay. The facility's policy mandates that MDS assessments, including discharge records, be completed and electronically encoded into the facility's system, with appropriate assessments transmitted to CMS. The failure to adhere to these procedures resulted in the deficiency, affecting residents discharged in the last 30 days who were at risk of not having their assessments transmitted timely.
Deficiency in Resident Activity Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities that met the individual preferences and needs of residents, as required by their comprehensive assessments and care plans. This deficiency was identified for three residents who expressed feelings of boredom and dissatisfaction with the activities offered. The activity calendars for September and October 2024 were limited, listing only books, puzzles, and TV time, with minimal variation or engagement opportunities. Interviews with the residents revealed that they were not aware of the activity calendar, and they felt that their preferences and needs were not being met, leading to feelings of boredom and depression. Resident #11, an elderly female with intact cognition, expressed that she had not received an activity calendar and was unaware of any activities being offered. Her care plan indicated a strong preference for various activities, including reading, listening to music, and participating in group activities, yet these preferences were not being addressed. Similarly, Resident #18, who also had intact cognition, reported feeling like she was not given opportunities to demonstrate her abilities and felt like she was being treated as an object. She expressed a need for more stimulation and engagement, which was not being provided by the facility. Resident #285, with moderate cognitive impairment, also reported not having seen an activity calendar and expressed feelings of boredom. The facility had been without an activity director from September 2024 until mid-October 2024, which contributed to the lack of organized activities. The new Activities Director acknowledged the importance of keeping residents engaged to prevent depression but had only recently started working on improving the activity program. The facility's administrator admitted that the lack of an activity director made it challenging to provide adequate activities, and the limited activities offered did not fully meet the residents' needs.
Failure to Provide Aseptic Tracheostomy Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards for a resident with a tracheostomy. The resident, who was cognitively intact and independent in activities of daily living, had a tracheostomy and required care and suctioning. The facility's comprehensive care plan did not adequately address the frequency or specifics of tracheostomy care, which contributed to the deficiency. During an observation, an LVN was seen performing tracheostomy care for the resident. The LVN did not follow aseptic technique as required. She opened a non-sterile bottle of normal saline and poured it into a sterile tray after donning sterile gloves, thereby contaminating the sterile field. Additionally, the LVN failed to clear the resident's airway of a visible mucus plug before inserting the inner cannula, which could have compromised the resident's airway. Interviews with the LVN and the DON confirmed the breach in aseptic technique and the failure to ensure a clear airway before inserting the inner cannula. The facility's policy on tracheostomy care emphasized the use of aseptic technique and the necessity of ensuring a patent airway, which was not adhered to during the observed care.
Inadequate Aseptic Technique in Tracheostomy Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to establish and maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, specifically in the provision of tracheostomy care for a resident. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including encephalopathy, HIV, and tracheostomy status, was assessed to be cognitively intact and independent in activities of daily living. The resident's care plan included antibiotic therapy for infection and tracheostomy interventions, but it did not address the specific care or frequency required for tracheostomy maintenance. During an observation, LVN F did not adhere to aseptic techniques while performing tracheostomy care, which included using non-sterile normal saline and failing to clear a mucus plug before inserting the inner cannula. The LVN acknowledged the breach in aseptic technique, admitting to contaminating the sterile field by handling non-sterile items with sterile gloves. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the expected procedure was not followed, leading to cross-contamination. The facility's policy on tracheostomy care, which mandates the use of aseptic techniques and sterile gloves, was not adhered to during the procedure. This failure in maintaining aseptic technique during tracheostomy care could potentially place residents at risk for infections.
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 330 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 20 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 Austin
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ignite Medical Resort Round Rock, Llc | 1.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
| Park Valley Inn Health Center | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 10 | 0 |
| Hearthstone Nursing And Rehabilitation | 1.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Cedar Pointe Health And Wellness Center | 4.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| Trinity Care Center | 4.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 9 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for The Center At Parmer.
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.