Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at The Lennwood Nursing And Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of elopement was able to leave the facility undetected, despite wearing a Wanderguard device. The facility did not complete an elopement assessment prior to the incident, and staff were unaware of the resident's exit until notified by someone outside the facility. The resident was later found at a nearby location with minor injuries.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering eloped from the facility undetected, despite having a Wanderguard device in place. The incident was not reported to the State Survey Agency within the required timeframe, and documentation of the event and device checks was incomplete. Staff and administration failed to ensure timely and proper reporting of the incident as required by facility policy and regulation.
A facility failed to provide adequate pharmaceutical services, resulting in the loss of 26 tablets of Acetaminophen-Codeine #3 for a resident. An LVN signed for the medication delivery but could not recall receiving it, leading to its disappearance. The resident, with a history of transient cerebral ischemic attack and rheumatoid arthritis, was at risk of unrelieved pain due to the missing medication.
The facility failed to provide adequate care for residents with pressure ulcers, as observed in three cases. A resident developed an unstageable pressure ulcer, and wound care was not consistently provided. Another resident's stage 4 ulcer was not properly dressed, and the low air loss mattress settings were incorrect. A third resident's mattress was not turned on, and staff did not adjust settings according to residents' weights, impacting pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
Two residents in the facility experienced inadequate catheter care, leading to potential risks of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. One resident with a suprapubic catheter had no urine output documented, and the care plan lacked specific interventions. Another resident's catheter showed cloudy urine with sediment, which was not addressed by staff. Interviews revealed inconsistencies in monitoring and reporting, highlighting deficiencies in adhering to catheter care protocols.
A facility failed to administer blood pressure medication, Midodrine, according to physician orders for a resident with multiple health conditions. The resident's blood pressure was not recorded before administering the medication on several occasions, contrary to the facility's policy. This oversight could lead to the resident not receiving the correct dosage of medication.
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for three residents with pressure ulcers and non-pressure wounds. Documentation gaps were found in the treatment administration records (TARs) for these residents, with numerous instances of undocumented wound care. Interviews revealed that wound care responsibilities were sometimes delegated to charge nurses, but there was a lack of consistent documentation and oversight to ensure treatments were completed and recorded.
A facility failed to obtain necessary hospice documentation for a resident admitted to hospice care, including nursing documentation, plan of care, and physician orders. The resident, with a life expectancy of less than six months, required substantial assistance for daily activities. Staff changes and the absence of a designated hospice coordinator contributed to the oversight.
A LTC facility reported a 29% medication error rate involving two residents. One resident received crushed extended-release medications, while another had medications improperly administered via a G-tube. Staff failed to follow physician orders and facility policies, leading to potential medication interactions and ineffective treatment.
A medication aide in a facility failed to follow infection control protocols while providing peri care to a resident, as they did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene after cleaning the resident. This oversight was compounded by a lack of training and awareness, as the aide had not been in-serviced on proper procedures. Interviews with staff confirmed the expectation of changing gloves and performing hand hygiene to prevent cross-contamination, but there was no evidence of the aide receiving necessary training.
The facility failed to notify physicians of significant changes in two residents' conditions, leading to their unexpected deaths. One resident had a dangerously low blood sugar level, and another had severe pulmonary edema or pneumonia, but neither physician was informed promptly. This lack of communication prevented timely medical intervention.
Two residents in a facility were not properly monitored or treated for changes in their conditions, leading to their deaths. One resident with diabetes experienced a dangerously low blood sugar level, but there was no documented follow-up or intervention after the initial shift. Another resident with multiple health issues had abnormal chest x-ray results indicating severe pulmonary edema or pneumonia, but the findings were not communicated to the medical team. These deficiencies highlight a lack of adherence to care protocols and communication failures within the facility.
A resident with multiple health conditions did not receive prescribed medications during several morning shifts due to refusals documented by a medication aide, MA G, without proper follow-up or notification to nursing staff. The facility failed to record necessary blood pressure readings to assess medication needs, and the charge nurse was unaware of the refusals, indicating a breakdown in communication and protocol adherence.
A resident with multiple medical conditions did not receive scheduled showers or bed baths according to her preferences for May and June 2024. Despite having a system for tracking showers, inconsistencies in documentation and execution were found. Staff interviews revealed gaps in following the facility's policy, contributing to the deficiency in providing adequate personal hygiene care.
The facility failed to provide necessary wound care for three residents with pressure ulcers on multiple occasions, as prescribed by their physicians. This lapse in care was due to confusion and lack of clarity regarding wound care responsibilities among staff, particularly on weekends.
The facility failed to document wound care for three residents on specified dates, despite having active wound care orders. Staff interviews revealed that the care was performed but not recorded, violating the facility's documentation policies.
Failure to Prevent Elopement of Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a known history of elopement was not provided with adequate supervision, resulting in the resident eloping from the facility. The resident, who had diagnoses including dementia, gout, acute kidney failure, Type 2 diabetes, oropharyngeal dysphagia, lack of coordination, and major depressive disorder, was wearing a Wanderguard device as ordered by the physician. Despite this, the resident was able to exit the facility undetected during the night, and staff did not become aware of the elopement until notified by an external party. The facility's records indicated that the Wanderguard was checked regularly, but there were missing timestamps for the device checks on the day of the incident. The facility failed to complete an elopement assessment for the resident prior to the incident, despite the resident's history of exit-seeking behavior and previous elopement incidents reported by the family. The initial social history and assessment did not document any behavioral concerns, and the family was not asked about prior elopement behaviors during admission. The only elopement evaluation on file was completed after the resident had already eloped, which identified the resident as being at risk for elopement. Staff interviews confirmed that there was no prior knowledge or documentation of the resident's elopement risk before the incident. Facility policy on elopement did not include specific guidance on supervision, accident prevention, or proactive measures to prevent elopement. The incident report and staff interviews revealed that the resident was able to leave the facility through an exit door that did not alarm, and staff were unaware of the resident's absence until contacted by someone outside the facility. The resident was later found at a nearby apartment complex with minor injuries and was subsequently transferred to a secure unit at another facility.
Failure to Timely Report Resident Elopement Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse or neglect were reported to the State Survey Agency within the required timeframe. Specifically, an incident occurred in which a male resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, and a history of wandering and elopement risk, exited the facility undetected during the night. The resident, who was wearing a Wanderguard device as per physician order, was found at an apartment complex across the street and returned to the facility with minor injuries. Documentation showed that the resident's Wanderguard was checked regularly and was reported to be in working order, but there were missing timestamps for checks on the days surrounding the incident. The facility's records did not indicate that an elopement evaluation had been completed prior to the incident, and the event was not reported to the State Survey Agency within 24 hours as required by policy and regulation. Interviews with staff and the resident's family revealed that the facility was not aware of the resident's prior history of elopement before admission, as this information was not solicited or provided during the pre-admission process. The family was notified of the incident by an outside party, and the facility staff only became aware of the resident's absence after being contacted. The Administrator and ADON were both on leave at the time of the incident, and the DON was responsible for reporting the event. However, there was no confirmation or documentation that the required self-report was made to the State Survey Agency, and the incident report was not uploaded to the TULIP system. The Administrator later acknowledged that she did not follow up to ensure the report was submitted, relying on the DON's verbal assurance. Facility policies required immediate reporting of all alleged violations involving abuse or neglect, including elopement incidents, to the appropriate authorities. The policies also outlined procedures for staff to follow in the event of a missing resident, including notification of the Administrator, completion of incident reports, and documentation in the medical record. Despite these policies, the failure to report the elopement incident within the mandated timeframe constituted a deficiency in the facility's abuse and neglect reporting procedures.
Failure in Pharmaceutical Services Leads to Missing Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate pharmaceutical services for a resident, resulting in the loss of 26 tablets of Acetaminophen-Codeine #3, a controlled medication. The incident involved a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) who signed for the delivery of the medication but could not recall receiving it. This discrepancy was discovered during a shift change when the medication was found missing from the medication cart. The LVN was subsequently suspended and tested positive for marijuana. The resident involved was an elderly female with a history of transient cerebral ischemic attack, peripheral vascular disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. She was prescribed Acetaminophen-Codeine #3 to manage her pain, with the medication to be administered up to four times daily as needed. The failure to properly receive and account for the medication placed the resident at risk of experiencing unrelieved pain due to the unavailability of her prescribed medication. The facility's investigation revealed that the LVN had signed a manifest form indicating receipt of the medication, but the medication was not present during the subsequent shift. The facility's controlled substances policy required that controlled medications be counted upon delivery by both the receiving nurse and the delivery person, which was not adhered to in this case. This oversight led to the medication's disappearance and the potential risk to the resident's well-being.
Failure to Provide Adequate Pressure Ulcer Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services for residents with pressure ulcers, as observed in three residents. Resident #1, who was admitted without any pressure ulcers, developed an unstageable pressure ulcer to the sacrum. The facility did not provide wound care on specific dates, and the resident's dressing was found dislodged without being replaced. Additionally, the low air loss mattress settings were not adjusted according to the resident's weight, potentially affecting pressure redistribution. Resident #2, who was readmitted with a stage 4 pressure ulcer, also experienced lapses in care. The facility did not replace the resident's soiled dressing overnight, and the wound was not packed as per physician orders. The low air loss mattress was set to the maximum weight, which was not appropriate for the resident's weight, potentially impacting the effectiveness of pressure relief. Resident #4, who had a history of a stage 4 pressure ulcer, was observed with a low air loss mattress that was not turned on during one observation. The facility staff, including LVN C, LVN B, and RN D, did not consistently check or adjust the mattress settings according to the residents' weights, which is crucial for preventing and treating pressure ulcers. The facility's wound care policy was not adhered to, as evidenced by the lack of proper wound care and mattress setting adjustments.
Inadequate Catheter Care and Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate catheter care and monitoring for two residents, leading to potential risks of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Resident #2, a male with a history of urinary retention and other significant health issues, had a suprapubic catheter that was not properly monitored. The comprehensive care plan for Resident #2 did not include specific interventions for the suprapubic catheter, and during an observation, it was noted that the catheter was not draining, and the drainage bag was empty. Despite orders to monitor the catheter and urine output every shift, there was a lack of documentation and follow-up on the catheter's condition, leading to a situation where the resident reported leakage and being wet. Resident #4, a female with a history of pressure ulcers and dementia, also experienced inadequate catheter care. Observations revealed cloudy urine with sediment in the catheter tubing, indicating potential complications. The care plan for Resident #4 included interventions for catheter care, but the facility staff failed to notice or address the abnormal urine appearance during routine checks. The lack of timely reporting and intervention for the observed abnormalities in the catheter care of both residents highlights a deficiency in the facility's adherence to its catheter care policy. Interviews with facility staff, including LVN B and RN D, revealed inconsistencies in the monitoring and reporting of catheter conditions. LVN B admitted to not checking the urine output for Resident #2 after changing the drainage bag and failed to notice the cloudy urine in Resident #4's catheter. The facility's policy on catheter care emphasizes the importance of monitoring urine output and appearance, yet these protocols were not effectively implemented, leading to the identified deficiencies.
Failure to Administer Blood Pressure Medication as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate pharmaceutical services for a resident by not administering blood pressure medication, Midodrine, in accordance with physician orders. Specifically, the facility did not obtain the resident's blood pressure prior to administering the medication on seven occasions. This oversight occurred over a period of several days, during which the resident's blood pressure was not recorded as required before administering the medication. The resident involved was an elderly male with multiple complex medical conditions, including encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, atrial flutter, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and a stage 4 pressure ulcer. The resident had a moderate cognitive impairment and used a wheelchair for mobility. Despite these conditions, the resident's care plan did not include any discussion of his blood pressure medication or related health conditions. The facility's medication administration records and nursing progress notes did not reflect the necessary blood pressure readings prior to administering Midodrine. This lack of documentation and adherence to physician orders could potentially lead to the resident not receiving therapeutic dosages of medication, posing a risk to their health. The facility's policy required obtaining and recording vital signs prior to medication administration, which was not followed in this case.
Incomplete Documentation of Wound Care for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for three residents who were reviewed for pressure ulcers and non-pressure wounds. For one resident, there were twelve occasions in January 2025 where wound care was not documented, despite having an unstageable pressure ulcer to the sacrum. The resident's care plan included specific interventions for wound care, but the treatment administration record (TAR) showed gaps in documentation, and there was no explanation in the nursing progress notes for the missed wound care. Another resident had eight instances of undocumented wound care in January and February 2025. This resident had a stage 4 pressure ulcer and other skin issues requiring treatment. The TARs for this resident also showed gaps in documentation, and the nursing progress notes did not provide reasons for the missed treatments. Despite these documentation gaps, a wound care visit indicated some improvement in the resident's wounds. A third resident had 28 occasions of undocumented wound care in January and February 2025. This resident had venous and arterial ulcers and required specific skin treatments. The TARs showed missing documentation for these treatments, and the nursing progress notes did not address the omissions. Interviews with the facility's wound care nurse and other staff revealed that wound care responsibilities were sometimes delegated to charge nurses, but there was a lack of consistent documentation and oversight to ensure treatments were completed and recorded.
Failure to Obtain Required Hospice Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to obtain necessary hospice documentation for a resident who was admitted to hospice care. This included the hospice nursing documentation, the most recent hospice plan of care, the hospice election form, physician certification and recertification of the terminal illness, names and contact information for hospice personnel, hospice medications information, and physician orders. This deficiency was identified for one of the three residents reviewed for hospice services and records. The resident in question had a life expectancy of less than six months and was receiving hospice services due to a diagnosis of congestive heart failure, among other conditions. The resident required substantial assistance for all activities of daily living and was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. Despite these needs, the facility did not have the required hospice documentation in the resident's e-chart or hospice binder at the time of review. Interviews with facility staff revealed that there had been recent changes in staff, and there was no designated hospice coordinator at the time. The facility had been without a social worker for two months, which contributed to the oversight. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the potential harm of incomplete documentation, emphasizing the importance of having accurate hospice binders, especially since many hospice residents were full code.
Medication Administration Errors in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, with a reported rate of 29% due to 9 errors out of 31 opportunities. This involved two residents during medication administration. For one resident, extended-release medications were crushed and administered, which is against the prescribed method of administration. The medications included Potassium Chloride ER and Isosorbide Mononitrate ER, both of which should not be crushed as it could lead to ineffective treatment and potential overdose. Another resident, who was severely cognitively impaired and on hospice care, received medications via a G-tube. The LVN administering the medications failed to follow physician orders and facility policy by not checking the tube placement or residual before administration. Additionally, the LVN did not flush the G-tube with water before and after administering the medications, which were all crushed and mixed together, contrary to the facility's guidelines that require each medication to be administered separately with flushing in between. Interviews with the staff involved revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to the facility's medication administration policies. The LVN admitted to not being aware of the requirement to flush the G-tube and to check for placement and residual, which are critical steps to prevent complications such as aspiration. The Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed that the staff did not follow the correct procedures, which could lead to medication interactions and ineffective treatment.
Inadequate Infection Control During Peri Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program, as evidenced by the actions of a medication aide (MA C) who did not adhere to proper infection control protocols while providing peri care to a resident. During an observation, it was noted that MA C did not perform hand hygiene or change gloves after cleaning the resident, and subsequently applied a clean brief, barrier cream, and touched the resident's linens with the same gloves. This lapse in protocol could lead to cross-contamination and potential infection. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of training and awareness regarding infection control procedures. MA C admitted to not having been in-serviced or checked off on providing incontinent care and was unaware of the requirement to change gloves and perform hand hygiene. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the infection preventionist confirmed that staff were expected to follow these procedures to prevent cross-contamination. However, there was no evidence that MA C had received the necessary training. The facility's policy, revised in December 2023, emphasized the importance of hand hygiene and stated that glove use does not replace hand washing.
Failure to Notify Physicians of Critical Changes Leads to Resident Deaths
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to immediately consult with the residents' physicians when there was a significant change in the residents' conditions, leading to the unexpected deaths of two residents. Resident #3 experienced a dangerously low blood sugar level of 40, which was not promptly addressed by notifying the physician. Despite the presence of standing orders for such situations, the necessary medical intervention was not executed in a timely manner. The resident was found unresponsive and later pronounced dead after unsuccessful resuscitation efforts. Resident #4 had an x-ray that revealed severe pulmonary edema or pneumonia, but the physician or physician extender was not notified of these critical findings. The resident was later found unresponsive and died shortly after. The lack of communication regarding the x-ray results prevented timely medical intervention that could have potentially altered the outcome. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of adherence to protocols for notifying physicians of significant changes in residents' conditions. The facility's failure to ensure proper communication and follow-up on critical health changes contributed to the residents not receiving the necessary medical attention, ultimately resulting in their deaths.
Failure to Monitor and Communicate Leads to Resident Deaths
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and care for two residents, leading to significant deficiencies in their care. Resident #3, a male with a history of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, was not accurately assessed, monitored, or treated for a change in condition when his blood sugar dropped to 40 mg/dL. Despite the dangerously low blood sugar level, there was no documented evidence of continued monitoring or intervention after the initial shift. The resident later died that night, with the cause of death unknown. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in following protocols for low blood sugar management, including the administration of glucagon and the lack of routine or PRN blood sugar checks. Resident #4, a male with multiple diagnoses including Hypertension and Dementia, was also not properly assessed or monitored for a change in condition. The facility failed to notify the physician or nurse practitioner of abnormal chest x-ray results indicating severe pulmonary edema or pneumonia. The resident was found unresponsive and later died, with no evidence that the x-ray findings were communicated to the medical team. Interviews with staff highlighted a lack of follow-up on lab and radiology results, which contributed to the failure to provide timely medical intervention. These deficiencies demonstrate a pattern of inadequate monitoring and communication within the facility, placing residents at risk for not receiving necessary medical care. The lack of adherence to professional standards of practice and the comprehensive resident-centered care plan resulted in significant lapses in care for both residents, ultimately leading to their deaths.
Failure to Administer Medications and Monitor Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of a resident, identified as Resident #2, by not following current physician orders and failing to administer medications during multiple morning shifts. The medication aide, MA G, did not provide Resident #2 with her prescribed medications on numerous occasions throughout May and June 2024. Additionally, no blood pressure readings were recorded during these shifts to determine if Resident #2 required her blood pressure medication. This lack of medication administration and monitoring could potentially exacerbate the resident's health conditions. Resident #2, a female with a history of heart failure, dementia, major depressive disorder, and other significant health issues, was prescribed several high-risk medications, including antidepressants, diuretics, opioids, and insulin. Despite these prescriptions, the medication administration records (MAR) indicated that Resident #2 refused medications from MA G on multiple dates, with no documented follow-up or intervention from nursing staff. The charge nurse, LVN A, was unaware of these refusals, as MA G did not notify her or other relevant staff members. Interviews with facility staff revealed a breakdown in communication and protocol adherence. MA G claimed to have informed several nurses about the refusals, but there was no evidence of this in the records. The facility's procedure required the medication aide to attempt administration three times before notifying the nurse, who would then contact the physician and family if the resident continued to refuse. However, this protocol was not followed, leading to a lack of appropriate response to Resident #2's medication refusals.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Bathing Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received necessary services to maintain personal hygiene. Specifically, Resident #1, who had multiple medical conditions including Parkinson's Disease, dementia, and was wheelchair-bound, did not receive scheduled showers or bed baths according to her preferences for May and June 2024. The resident was scheduled to receive showers on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, but records and interviews indicated that she did not receive these services consistently. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and LVNs, revealed inconsistencies in the documentation and execution of the shower schedule. Although the facility had a system in place for tracking showers, there were gaps in the documentation, with some staff failing to complete required shower sheets. The Point of Care (POC) system showed some bathing activities, but these did not align with the resident's scheduled days, and there was no documentation for several days in May and June. The facility's policy required CNAs to notify charge nurses if a resident refused a shower, and alternative options like bed baths were to be offered. However, interviews indicated that this protocol was not consistently followed. The new Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) acknowledged the importance of reviewing and signing shower sheets to ensure compliance, but the lack of adherence to these procedures contributed to the deficiency in providing adequate personal hygiene care for Resident #1.
Failure to Provide Necessary Wound Care for Residents with Pressure Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically, three residents with pressure ulcers did not receive wound care on multiple occasions as prescribed by their physicians. This failure was observed through record reviews, interviews, and direct observations, indicating a significant lapse in care that could lead to worsening of existing pressure ulcers and the development of new ones. Resident #1, a male with vascular dementia, heart failure, and chronic embolism, was readmitted to the facility with an unstageable pressure ulcer to the sacrum. Despite having specific wound care orders, there was no documentation that wound care was provided on two separate dates. Additionally, the resident's baseline care plan did not address the wound, and the resident was later transferred to the hospital due to abnormal labs. Resident #2, a male with type II diabetes mellitus and heart failure, also had an unstageable pressure ulcer to the coccyx. The resident's wound care was not documented on three separate dates, and the wound increased in size over time. Similarly, Resident #3, a female with heart failure, pressure ulcer, and dementia, did not receive documented wound care on one occasion. Interviews with staff revealed confusion and lack of clarity regarding wound care responsibilities, particularly on weekends, contributing to the lapses in care.
Failure to Document Wound Care for Three Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for three residents. Specifically, the staff did not document wound care for Resident #1 on 03/04/24, Resident #2 on 03/16/24, and Resident #3 on 03/06/24. These omissions were identified through record reviews and staff interviews, revealing a lack of proper documentation in the Treatment Administration Records (TAR) for the specified dates. Resident #1, a male with vascular dementia, heart failure, and chronic embolism, had active wound care orders for a sacrum wound. Despite these orders, there was no documentation of wound care being provided on 03/04/24. Similarly, Resident #2, a male with type II diabetes mellitus and heart failure, had wound care orders for a coccyx wound, but no documentation was found for wound care on 03/16/24. Resident #3, a female with heart failure, pressure ulcer, and dementia, also had wound care orders for a sacrococcyx wound, but no documentation was found for wound care on 03/06/24. Interviews with the staff revealed that the wound care was performed but not documented. LVN C mentioned that she performed wound care on 03/16/24 but thought she had documented it. The TN stated she provided wound care on 03/04/24 and 03/06/24 but forgot to document it. The facility's policies and procedures require that all wound care be documented, including the date, time, and the name and title of the individual performing the care. The Administrator emphasized the importance of documentation for ensuring proper care and communication among the interdisciplinary team.
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 1,110 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 53 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 Dallas
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williamsburg Village Healthcare Campus | 0.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 36 | 5 |
| Duncanville Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center | 0.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 18 | 0 |
| Five Points Nursing And Rehabilitation | 2 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| The Laurenwood Nursing And Rehabilitation | 2.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 8 | 0 |
| Desoto Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 3.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 15 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for The Lennwood Nursing And Rehabilitation.
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.