Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around April 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Windsor Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Of Corpu during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Medication Given Outside BP Parameters: A resident receiving midodrine for BP management had the medication administered on multiple occasions despite BP readings above the ordered hold parameters. The DON confirmed the doses should not have been given outside the physician’s parameters, and the facility policy required holding medication when vital signs were outside prescribed limits.
Two residents with significant cognitive and ADL dependence had call lights left out of reach during observation. One resident with dementia and stroke-related deficits had the call light hanging behind her head on the bed frame, and another resident with severe cognitive impairment and brain injury had the call light hanging off the bed toward the floor. CNA and LVN staff stated the residents could not reach the devices as positioned and that staff were responsible for keeping call lights within reach at all times.
Missing admission orders for morphine and foley catheter care. A resident with hospice-related comfort care had morphine orders entered without specific pain-level parameters, and an LVN stated the order was entered from a hospice order but lacked the details nurses needed to dose it correctly. Another resident with an indwelling catheter had catheter care documented in the care plan, but the chart initially had no catheter orders; staff later entered catheter-related orders after the omission was identified.
A resident with NSTEMI, sepsis, CKD, type 2 DM, and pneumonia had an inaccurate baseline care plan that listed an external catheter instead of an indwelling catheter present on admission. The resident said staff emptied the bag, checked the tubing, and cleaned it, while the DON later confirmed the care plan was incorrect and that she signed off without fully reviewing the information.
A facility failed to complete comprehensive care plans for two residents. One resident with vascular dementia was observed on oxygen, but the care plan did not identify or plan for oxygen use. Another resident with multiple chronic conditions and wounds was on EBP with staff wearing gowns and gloves, but the care plan did not reflect EBP even though the DON and ADON confirmed it should have been included.
A resident with vascular dementia and limited ability to communicate was observed on oxygen, but the EHR had no oxygen order and the care plan did not address oxygen use. An LVN documented that the resident had an O2 sat of 84%, the NP ordered oxygen and a STAT chest x-ray, and oxygen was applied, but later staff could not find any oxygen order in the EHR. The DON stated the resident had returned from the hospital on oxygen and the admitting nurse should have entered the order.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and multiple serious diagnoses had a PRN Xanax order for anxiety that was entered without a stop date, even though facility policy limited PRN psychotropic drugs to 14 days. The MAR showed the medication was administered twice, and the DON stated the order should have included a 14-day stop date.
Unlocked Medication Cart Left Unattended: A medication cart on the 400 hall was observed unlocked and unattended while an LVN stepped away to assist a resident. The LVN stated she thought she had locked the cart, and the DON stated all medication carts are expected to be locked when staff are not in sight of them. Facility policy required the cart to be locked when not in use and kept in the nurse’s line of sight when unlocked.
Infection control failures occurred during wound care for a resident with unstageable pressure injuries, sepsis, and lymphedema wounds. An RN did not perform hand hygiene before starting care, did not clean hands or change gloves between dirty and clean tasks, placed wound supplies on a contaminated overbed table, used scissors from her pocket, and did not place a barrier between the resident’s brief and buttocks during sacral and gluteal wound care. The WCN and DON stated proper hand hygiene, glove changes, clean surfaces, and barriers were important parts of wound care, and no completed wound treatment competency assessment for the RN was provided.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was not protected from sexual abuse by another resident with Alzheimer's disease, who was observed touching the first resident's genital area during dinner. Staff did not recognize the incident as sexual abuse, despite facility policy defining such contact as non-consensual sexual contact of any type.
A resident's care plan was not updated to reflect her significant decline in mobility and activity level following a fall and hip fracture. Despite being bed-bound and only getting up for dialysis, the care plan inaccurately stated she ambulated independently via wheelchair. Staff interviews confirmed the resident's current condition, and the MDS nurse and Activities Director acknowledged the care plan's inaccuracy.
Medication Given Outside BP Parameters
Penalty
Summary
Ensure that residents were free from significant medication errors was not met for one resident receiving midodrine for blood pressure management. Resident #3 was a male with diagnoses including heart failure and had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. His active order dated 12/26/25 directed staff to give midodrine 10 mg by mouth four times daily for BP and to hold the medication if BP was greater than 110/60. Review of the April 2026 MAR showed that midodrine was administered at night on April 3, 9, 10, 15, and 21 despite recorded blood pressures above the physician’s parameters, including 127/76, 125/67, 115/73, 144/61, and 124/87. During interview, the DON confirmed the medication was administered outside of parameters on those dates and stated it should not have been given with those blood pressures. The facility policy on medication administration stated that vital signs should be obtained and recorded when applicable or per physician orders, and medications should be held when vital signs are outside prescribed parameters.
Call Lights Not Kept Within Reach
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences by not ensuring the call lights for two residents were within reach. Resident #35 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and cerebral infarction. Her MDS reflected that she was rarely or never understood, was dependent for all ADLs, and was dependent for rolling left and right. Her care plan identified an ADL self-care performance deficit related to cerebral infarction and included an intervention to be sure her call light was within reach and to encourage use as needed. Resident #79 had diagnoses including nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and encephalopathy. Her MDS reflected a BIMS score of 7, indicating severe cognitive impairment, and showed dependence for toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, and lower body dressing, with substantial to maximal assistance needed for personal hygiene and rolling left and right. Her care plan also identified an ADL self-care performance deficit related to brain injury and included an intervention to be sure her call light was within reach and to encourage use as needed. During observation, Resident #35 was lying in bed and her call light was hanging on the bed frame behind her head and was not within reach. CNA G stated the resident was not able to reach it and moved it within reach, adding that staff were responsible for ensuring it was within reach at all times. During observation, Resident #79 was lying in bed and her call light was hanging off the bed with the button toward the floor and was not within reach. CNA G and LVN K stated the resident could use the call light and that staff were responsible for ensuring it remained within reach; LVN K then moved it within reach. The facility policy stated staff would ensure the call light was within reach of the resident and secured as needed.
Missing Admission Orders for Morphine and Foley Catheter Care
Penalty
Summary
Physician orders were not in place for the immediate care of 2 residents at the time of admission. For one resident with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, alcoholic polyneuropathy, heart failure, and COPD, the admission record and hospice care plan reflected comfort-focused care and multiple morphine orders entered on the order summary. However, the morphine order details listed several doses together and did not include specific pain level parameters for administration. An LVN stated the order was entered from a written hospice order and that pain level parameters were important so nurses would know what amount of morphine to give based on the resident's pain level. For the second resident, admitted with diagnoses including NSTEMI, sepsis, CKD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and pneumonia, the baseline care plan documented that the resident used an indwelling catheter and included catheter-related monitoring and care interventions. The order summary on one date showed no orders for the catheter, while the next day the order summary reflected catheter care orders such as cleaning, irrigation, catheter change, securement, privacy bag placement, and keeping the collection bag below bladder level. During observation, the resident stated the catheter had been placed during prior hospital visits and that facility staff emptied the bag, checked the tubing, and cleaned it. The catheter bag was observed hanging below the bladder, off the floor, with a privacy bag. During interviews, an LVN verified there were no catheter orders in the chart at the time reviewed and stated the admitting nurse was responsible for entering orders and the team reviewed them. The ADON stated new admissions required the admitting nurse to input orders and call the doctor for clarifications, and that residents with a foley catheter had to have orders in place. The DON stated the resident should have had catheter orders since admission and verified the orders were not entered until later. The DON also stated it was important to have accurate orders so staff were aware of how to care for the resident and provide appropriate care.
Inaccurate Baseline Care Plan for Catheter Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #124’s baseline care plan was accurate. Resident #124’s record showed diagnoses including NSTEMI, sepsis, CKD, type 2 DM, and pneumonia, and the MDS reflected a BIMS score of 15 with intact cognition. The baseline care plan, dated 04/27/26, stated the resident used an external catheter, and the option for an indwelling catheter was not selected, even though the resident had a catheter present on admission. During observation and interview, Resident #124 stated he had a catheter placed during a hospital stay and that facility staff emptied the bag, checked the tubing, and cleaned it, with no issues reported. The DON later stated the resident had an indwelling catheter present on admission and that the baseline care plan incorrectly identified it as an external catheter instead of an indwelling catheter. The DON also stated she was supposed to review the information for accuracy but had been very busy and only signed off. The facility’s Baseline Care Plan policy required the plan to include the minimum healthcare information necessary and for the admitting nurse to gather information from the admission assessment, transfer information, physician orders, and discussion with the resident or representative.
Care plans omitted oxygen use and enhanced barrier precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes for Resident #106 and Resident #68. For Resident #106, the record showed a male resident admitted on 04/02/26 with vascular dementia and a BIMS that could not be obtained because he was rarely understood. Although he was observed on 05/04/26 lying in bed with nasal cannula oxygen flowing at 2 L/min, his comprehensive care plan dated 05/04/26 did not identify or plan for oxygen use, and the record review noted he had not received oxygen within 14 days of the MDS assessment. For Resident #68, the record showed a female resident admitted with diagnoses including acute embolism and thrombosis of the left upper extremity, lymphedema, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, muscle wasting and atrophy, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, and unspecified dementia. Her MDS reflected a BIMS score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Her care plan dated 05/03/26 addressed potential or actual impairment to skin integrity and alteration in skin integrity related to pressure ulcer/injury, but it did not reflect the need for enhanced barrier precautions. During interview and observation, Resident #68 stated staff wore yellow gowns and gloves to provide her care and that nurses cleaned her wounds and changed bandages daily. An LVN was observed donning gown and gloves before entering her room and stated the resident was on EBP for wounds present since admission. The ADON and DON both stated Resident #68 required EBP and that this should have been care planned, and the DON verified that EBP was not included in the care plan. The MDS Nurse stated she completed the assessments and comprehensive care plans and acknowledged that oxygen had not been care planned for Resident #106.
Missing Oxygen Order in EHR
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice, physician orders, the comprehensive care plan, and the resident’s goals and preferences for one resident with vascular dementia who was rarely understood and had not received oxygen within 14 days of the MDS assessment. The resident’s comprehensive care plan dated 05/04/26 did not include oxygen use, and the order summary on that date showed no oxygen orders. A nurse progress note documented that on 04/20/26 at 10:28 PM, LVN C noted the resident was coughing up thick white to clear phlegm, pale in color, with an O2 saturation of 84%, and she called the NP, who gave a STAT chest x-ray order and ordered oxygen at 3 L/min via nasal cannula. The note stated oxygen was given as ordered and the resident’s O2 level increased to 92%. During an observation on 05/04/26 at 9:38 AM, the resident was lying in bed with nasal cannula oxygen flowing at 2 L/min. In an interview later that day, LVN D stated she was the floor nurse for the resident and was not sure what the correct oxygen flow rate was; she also could not find any oxygen orders in the EHR. The DON stated there should have been an oxygen order in the EHR because the resident had returned from the hospital about 2 weeks earlier on oxygen, and that the admitting nurse, identified as LVN C, should have entered the new order. The facility guideline stated to write PRN oxygen orders if a resident uses oxygen.
PRN Xanax Order Exceeded Allowed Duration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that one resident’s drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs when Resident #76’s Xanax order was not limited to the required 14-day duration for a PRN psychotropic medication. Resident #76 was a [AGE]-year-old male admitted with diagnoses including syncope and collapse, malignant neoplasm of the temporal lobe, sepsis, COPD, muscle wasting and atrophy, and pneumonia. His MDS reflected a BIMS score of 11, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and his care plan identified use of anti-anxiety medication for anxiety disorder with interventions to administer medication as ordered and monitor for side effects and effectiveness. The order summary showed an active PRN Xanax 0.25 mg oral tablet order, given every 24 hours as needed for anxiety, with a start date of 04/04/26 and no stop date. The MAR showed Xanax was administered on 04/04/26 and 04/07/26. During interview, the ADON stated PRN psychotropic medications were ordered for 14 days and that a new order was obtained to continue the medication, while the DON stated the order should have had a stop date of 14 days and that the nurse should have ensured the order had a stop date. The facility policy stated PRN psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days.
Unlocked Medication Cart Left Unattended
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments for 1 of 8 medication carts observed for compliance. During observation on 5/3/26 at 10:30 a.m., the 400-hall medication cart was found unlocked and with no staff member within view of the cart. LVN I later stated that the cart was hers and that she had stepped into a room to assist a resident, and she thought she had locked the cart before walking away. LVN I also stated it was her responsibility to lock the cart and that a resident could have accessed the medications in the accessible drawers, which contained non-narcotics. During an interview on 5/5/2026 at 1:30 p.m., the DON stated it was her expectation that all medication carts be locked when staff are not in sight of the cart, and that residents on the 400 hall could have accessed the medications in the cart. The DON also stated that LVN I had been re-educated regarding leaving the medication cart unlocked. Record review of the facility policy titled, Medication Carts and Supplies for Administering Meds, revised 10/01/2019, stated that the medication cart is locked at all times when not in use and must remain in the nurse's line of sight when it is not locked.
Infection Control Lapses During Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program during wound care for a resident with multiple wounds and significant medical history, including unstageable pressure injuries to the right buttock and sacrum, sepsis, and lymphedema wounds of both arms. The resident’s admission record also reflected moderate cognitive impairment. During observation of wound care, RN A handled the resident’s arm wounds without washing or sanitizing her hands before beginning care, and she did not perform hand hygiene after removing soiled dressings and before applying clean dressings. She also did not wash her hands after completing wound care on the resident’s arms. RN A brought wound care supplies into the room and placed them on the resident’s rolling overbed table, which had numerous other personal items on it, rather than on a disinfected surface. She used scissors from her scrub pocket to remove soiled dressings and set the scissors on the resident’s blanket. She then used saline and gauze to cleanse the wounds, opened clean petrolatum gauze and rolled gauze, and applied them to the resident’s forearms. Between the right and left arm wound care, she removed her gloves but did not perform hand hygiene before putting on a clean pair of gloves and continuing care. For the resident’s buttock and sacral wounds, RN A again did not perform hand hygiene before resuming care. After washing her hands, she touched the doorknob, rolling table, and bed controls before putting on gloves. She then removed the resident’s blankets and unfastened the brief without placing a barrier between the brief and the resident’s buttocks. While removing the bordered dressings from the sacrum and right gluteus, she touched clean gauze pads with dirty gloves. The WCN and DON stated that hand hygiene, glove changes between dirty and clean tasks, use of a clean surface for supplies, and placement of a barrier under the resident were important parts of wound care. The facility did not provide a completed wound treatment competency assessment for RN A.
Failure to Protect Resident from Sexual Abuse by Another Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was protected from sexual abuse by another resident during dinner service in the dining room. One resident, a male with a history of cerebral infarction and severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 1), was observed by the Social Services Director (SSD) to have another resident, a female with Alzheimer's disease and also severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 6), touching his genital area over his pants. The SSD noticed the incident after making eye contact with the male resident, who appeared surprised, and upon further observation, saw the female resident's hand moving on top of his genital area. The SSD immediately intervened and separated the two residents. Interviews with facility staff, including the SSD, DON, and ADM, revealed that none of them believed the contact constituted sexual abuse, citing the lack of intent for sexual gratification and the belief that both residents could consent to sexual activity. The SSD and DON both stated that the male resident could communicate his needs and emotions, and the psychiatric services social worker noted that he felt safe at the facility, though he became defensive when asked about the incident. The female resident did not recall the incident and denied any inappropriate behavior. The facility's policy defines sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. Despite this, staff did not recognize the incident as sexual abuse and did not identify it as such in their responses. The incident was reported to the administration, but the staff's interpretation of the event did not align with the facility's written policy regarding abuse and resident protection.
Failure to Update Resident Care Plan Post-Decline
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to review and revise the care plan for a resident, resulting in a care plan that did not accurately reflect the resident's current mobility and activity level. The resident, an elderly female with moderate cognitive impairment, had experienced a significant decline in physical and mental health following a fall in July 2024, which resulted in a hip fracture. Despite this decline, the resident's care plan continued to state that she ambulated independently via wheelchair and participated in group activities, which was no longer accurate. Observations and interviews with staff revealed that the resident was now bed-bound, only getting out of bed for dialysis, and required assistance for all activities of daily living. The resident's condition had deteriorated to the point where she could no longer reposition herself in bed or use her wheelchair for mobility. Staff interviews indicated that the resident had not fallen frequently since the major fall, but her care plan had not been updated to reflect her current needs and limitations. The MDS nurse and Activities Director acknowledged that the care plan was outdated and needed revision. The MDS nurse admitted that the care plan still inaccurately reflected the resident's mobility status and that it had not been updated since the resident's decline. The Activities Director also noted that the care plan should have been updated following the resident's hospital stays and changes in condition. The facility lacked a system to ensure care plans were regularly reviewed and updated, contributing to the oversight.
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 130 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 Corpus Christi
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Windsor Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Of Morga | 1 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Alameda Oaks Nursing Center | 1.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 8 | 0 |
| San Rafael Nursing And Rehabiliation | 1.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 2 |
| Brookdale Trinity Towers | 2.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 11 | 0 |
| Avir At Corpus Christi | 2.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Windsor Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Of Corpu.
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.