Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around March 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of August 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Vierra Falls Church during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Kitchen sanitation, food dating, temperature checks, and tray-line contamination: Surveyors observed a dirty can opener, multiple opened food items in dry storage, the walk-in freezer, and a refrigerator that were not dated or had unreadable dates, and tray-line staff served hot foods without checking temps after placing them on the steam table. Staff also repeatedly touched spaghetti and plate surfaces with gloved hands while assembling trays, and the DM acknowledged the improper practices.
Improper Dumpster Storage and Coverage: Surveyors observed three dumpsters outside the kitchen back door with lids open and trash piled above the top of the containers, and two of the three dumpsters lacked drain plugs. A DA and the DM both confirmed the conditions and stated they did not know. The facility policy required outside refuse containers to have tightly fitting lids or covers and to be kept covered when not being loaded.
A resident admitted with a lumbar burst fracture and a dehisced post-laminectomy back wound had wound care managed by contracted NPs. Initial assessments documented a full-thickness surgical wound without infection, and treatment orders were implemented, but staff did not document ongoing wound progression in progress notes. On a later visit, an NP documented that the wound had widened and that spinal surgical hardware was visible, yet still described the wound as stable and did not notify the attending physician or neurosurgeon, despite the care plan requiring reporting of abnormalities and signs of infection. The DON later stated that the exposed hardware should have been escalated, and a QIO review found that the surgeon did not appear to have been contacted when the hardware first became exposed. The resident was eventually sent from a scheduled surgical follow-up appointment to the hospital for a wound infection and started on antibiotics.
Two residents did not receive showers as scheduled and required by their care plans and facility policy. One resident, with moderate cognitive impairment and dependent on staff for bathing, was scheduled for twice-weekly showers but reported missing multiple consecutive showers, while CNA documentation showed conflicting entries for bed baths, showers, and even a tub bath despite the facility not having a tub. Another cognitively intact resident, needing partial to moderate assistance with bathing and care planned to receive a sponge bath if a full shower was not tolerated, had documentation of only one bathing event over an entire month, with no additional records produced upon request. The DON stated that all residents were to receive two showers per week per the CNA schedule and that CNAs were expected to document accurately, but the records did not support that this occurred.
A resident admitted with an unstable lumbar burst fracture and a surgical back wound had wound assessments documented in the EMR, including changes from full-thickness dehiscence to stability and later exposed surgical hardware. A contracted NP obtained wound photographs over several visits that showed initial improvement and later deterioration, with increased redness and wound width, but these images were never uploaded into the EMR. The DON confirmed the absence of the photographs in the clinical record, despite a facility policy requiring complete, accurate, and timely documentation of all assessments and observations to provide a clear picture of a resident’s progress.
Failure to Offer Advance Directive Information: A resident with significantly impaired cognition did not receive advance directive information after admission. The EMR and social services assessment showed no advance directive and that information was not offered, and the ADM stated no family could be found and the resident was not in a state to sign. Facility policy states the resident or resident representative is to be provided easy-to-understand information about the right to refuse treatment and to formulate an advance directive.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was sent to the ER after copious pus was found at the G-tube site, and the RR was notified. However, the facility had no evidence that a written transfer/discharge notice with appeal rights was provided to the resident or RR, and the Administrator stated he was unaware of the requirement for the notice and appeal process.
Care plan omitted comfort care for a resident receiving palliative care. Review of the resident’s MDS showed severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses including hypertensive heart disease, hypertensive CKD stage four, and palliative care, but the comprehensive care plan did not include comfort care. An LPN, the MDSC, and the DON all stated comfort care should be included so staff know the resident’s needs, and the DON confirmed comfort measures were not listed as care needs.
A resident admitted with dysphagia, Parkinson's disease, and tube feeding dependence was not weighed weekly for the first four weeks after admission as required by policy. The RD completed a nutrition assessment without obtaining an updated weight, and the DON acknowledged the resident missed two weeks of weighing. The resident's chart showed admission weight, moderate cognitive impairment, and an underweight BMI, while the care plan and RD note identified malnutrition risk and called for weight monitoring per protocol.
Oxygen concentrator filters were not maintained in accordance with manufacturer guidance for two residents receiving O2 therapy. An LPN observed grey debris buildup on the external filters in both rooms and confirmed it should not be there. The DON stated Maintenance was responsible for cleaning the filters and that they "know" when to do it, while the facility policy required following manufacturer recommendations for filter cleaning and servicing.
Failure to document a provider response to a consulting pharmacist’s medication regimen review recommendation for a resident with schizophrenia and intact cognition. The resident was receiving risperidone, mirtazapine, and fluoxetine, and the pharmacist recommended considering a GDR and possible dose changes or discontinuation of some psychotropic meds. The EMR showed no provider response, and the DON confirmed there was no evidence of follow-up in the chart.
The facility failed to offer two residents, including one with moderate cognitive impairment and one with severe cognitive impairment, the opportunity to receive pneumococcal vaccination in line with current CDC guidance. Records showed one resident was overdue for the pneumococcal vaccine and the other had prior PCV13 and PPSV23 doses, yet both MDS assessments indicated their pneumococcal vaccines were not up to date. The DON stated they were not familiar with the CDC’s current pneumococcal vaccine recommendations, despite the facility policy requiring immunization offers based on current CDC guidelines.
A resident in an LTC facility was administered ten times the prescribed dose of IV Acyclovir due to a misunderstanding by an LPN. The LPN misinterpreted the pharmacist's instructions and failed to verify the medication order, resulting in the resident's hospitalization for acute kidney injury and acyclovir-induced nephrotoxicity. The resident, who had a history of encephalopathy and HSV encephalitis, was critically affected and later passed away after the family chose comfort measures.
A resident with a PICC line was not provided with proper infection control measures as an LPN administered IV medication without wearing a gown, despite orders for enhanced barrier precautions. Facility staff confirmed the protocol requires gown and glove use for such procedures, aligning with CDC guidelines to prevent MDRO transmission.
Kitchen sanitation, food dating, temperature checks, and tray-line contamination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment used in food handling was clean when not in use. During the initial kitchen inspection, an accumulation of a dark substance was observed on the inside of the can opener device, and in interview, staff confirmed it was dirty and needed to be cleaned. The facility also failed to ensure food in dry storage, the walk-in freezer, and the refrigerator in the cooking area was properly dated and not expired. Surveyors observed an opened and undated 16-ounce container of roasted chicken base in the refrigerator, an opened box of individually wrapped soft baked cookies with no open date, three 5-pound boxes of Krusteaz Homestyle Cornbread mix with no opened date, an open package of food in the walk-in freezer with no open date and an unreadable label, and a 6-pound can of red peppers with an unreadable stamped date. The Dietary Manager confirmed several of these items should have been marked with the date opened. During lunch tray preparation, staff placed meat sauce and broccoli on the steam table and served them without checking their temperatures after placement. Staff also touched spaghetti hanging off the sides of plates with gloved hands multiple times and placed the palm of the same gloved hand on plate surfaces several times while assembling trays. In interview after tray line, the Dietary Manager stated staff should not have touched the spaghetti or plate surfaces and acknowledged she did not know temperatures were supposed to be checked after food was placed on the steam table before serving.
Improper Dumpster Storage and Coverage
Penalty
Summary
Dispose of garbage and refuse properly was cited after surveyors observed three trash dumpsters outside the kitchen back door with lids open and trash piled higher than the top of the dumpsters. Two of the three dumpsters did not have drain plugs, leaving openings at the bottom edges. During interviews, Dietary Aide 1 stated, "I didn't know," when shown the dumpsters, and the Dietary Manager also observed the same conditions and confirmed the findings, stating, "I didn't know." Review of the facility policy titled "Disposal of Garbage and Refuse" required refuse containers and dumpsters kept outside the facility to have tightly fitting lids, doors, or covers and to be kept covered when not being loaded.
Failure to Escalate Change in Surgical Wound With Exposed Spinal Hardware
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a contracted wound NP recognized and escalated a significant change in a resident’s surgical back wound, which had exposed spinal hardware and possible infection. The resident was admitted with an unstable burst fracture of the first lumbar vertebra and had undergone a T10–L4 laminectomy, resulting in a surgical wound on the back that was dehisced on admission. The admission MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact, dependent on staff for all ADLs, and had a surgical wound. The care plan directed staff to monitor and document the wound’s location, size, and treatment, and to report abnormalities, failure to heal, and signs and symptoms of infection to the physician. Initial wound assessments by NP1 documented the wound as a full-thickness surgical dehiscence present on admission, with measurements recorded and no signs of infection noted. On a subsequent assessment, NP1 documented that the wound remained stable, with some slough present and moderate serosanguineous exudate, and the treatment plan was adjusted to cleansing with Vashe, application of Hydrofera Blue, and coverage with an ABD dressing three times per week. The Treatment Administration Record showed that clinical staff completed the ordered wound care, but there was a lack of progress notes documenting the wound’s appearance over time, which would have shown the progression or deterioration of the wound. On a later visit, NP2 assessed the wound and documented that it was stable, with measurements indicating a wider wound, 80% granulation tissue, 20% slough, and moderate serosanguineous exudate. NP2 also documented that there was exposed tissue including the spinal surgical hardware, and repeated this finding in a Skin and Wound Note. Despite this significant change, there was no indication that NP2 notified the resident’s physician or neurosurgeon, as required by the care plan. The DON stated that the exposure of spinal hardware should have been escalated and that the surgeon should have been alerted, and also noted that the former wound nurse (an LPN) should have questioned NP2 about the exposed hardware and did not, and that floor nurses should have documented the wound’s appearance after each dressing change. The resident had a follow-up appointment scheduled with the neurosurgeon, and NP2 documented that the resident was not seen again because of the upcoming appointment, with plans to follow up after that visit. At the neurosurgeon’s appointment, the resident was transferred to the emergency room due to a wound infection and was treated with antibiotics. A QIO review later noted that by the time NP2 documented visible surgical hardware, the surgeon did not appear to have been contacted sooner despite the new exposure of underlying hardware, and stated that such findings should prompt immediate contact with the surgeon and consideration of possible hospitalization. Interviews with NP1, the DON, the medical director’s NP, and the resident’s physician confirmed that the exposed spinal hardware and worsening wound should have triggered immediate notification of the surgeon, but this did not occur, resulting in a delay in further assessment and treatment.
Failure to Provide and Accurately Document Scheduled Showers for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide and accurately document showers according to its own shower schedule and residents’ care plans for two residents. One resident was admitted with arthritis, muscle weakness, and lack of coordination, had a BIMS score of 10 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and was care planned as dependent on staff for bathing/showering twice weekly and as necessary, with a preference to choose between a shower or sponge bath. The facility’s shower assignment schedule listed this resident to receive showers on Mondays and Thursdays on day shift. Despite this, the resident and a family member reported that the resident did not receive scheduled showers, missing multiple consecutive showers, and the resident stated on multiple occasions that no one came to offer or provide a shower. Record review for this resident showed inconsistencies and inaccuracies in CNA documentation of showers and baths. The Plan of Care response history indicated showers were due on specific dates, but CNAs documented some showers as non-applicable and entered multiple bathing events (bed baths, showers, and a tub bath) on various dates and times. One CNA later stated she had not provided the bed bath she documented and believed she had charted on the wrong resident. Another CNA documented a tub bath even though the facility did not have a tub bath, as confirmed by the ADON. These discrepancies showed that the documented bathing did not reliably reflect actual care provided and that the resident’s scheduled showers were not ensured according to the facility’s shower schedule and care plan. The second resident was admitted with muscle weakness, had a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition, and required partial to moderate assistance with bathing. The care plan directed that the resident should receive a sponge bath if a full shower or bath could not be tolerated. Facility documentation for this resident showed only one shower/bath or sponge bath for an entire month, and when the surveyor requested all bathing/shower records for the resident’s stay, no additional records were produced. The DON stated that all residents were to receive two showers per week per the CNA book schedule and that CNAs were expected to follow the schedule and document correctly, but the records for this resident did not demonstrate that showers or sponge baths were provided as required by the facility’s policy and schedule.
Failure to Incorporate Wound Photographs Into Resident’s EMR
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate and complete clinical documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) for one resident with a surgical back wound. The resident was admitted with an unstable burst fracture of the first lumbar vertebra and had a surgical wound documented on the admission MDS, with a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition and an upper body impairment. Wound Assessment Reports in the EMR documented a full-thickness surgical dehiscence on one date, a stable wound on a later date, and then a stable wound with exposed surgical hardware on a subsequent date. However, photographs taken of the wound by a contracted wound management nurse practitioner (NP1) on multiple visits, which visually demonstrated improvement between the first two assessments and a decline by the third, were not uploaded or incorporated into the resident’s EMR. During interviews, NP1 confirmed visits with the resident on two of the documented assessment dates and presented wound photographs showing the wound’s progression and later deterioration, including increased redness around the wound and increased wound width on the later date. NP1 stated she did not know why these images were not incorporated into the clinical record. The DON acknowledged that the photographs of the resident’s wound were not uploaded into the clinical record and stated that having such images would provide critical information on the wound’s status and healing. Review of the facility’s “Documentation in Medical Record” policy indicated that each resident’s medical record must contain an accurate representation of the resident’s experiences and enough information to provide a picture of the resident’s progress through complete, accurate, and timely documentation, and that licensed staff and interdisciplinary team members are to document all assessments and observations in the medical record.
Failure to Offer Advance Directive Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to offer advanced directive information for one of five residents reviewed for advanced directives, Resident 13. Review of the electronic medical record showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and the admission MDS with an ARD of 06/30/25 documented a BIMS score of 7 out of 15, indicating significantly impaired cognition. The resident’s undated Social Services History & Initial Assessment, under Advanced Care Planning, indicated the resident did not have an advance directive and that information about advance directives was not offered. During interview on 04/21/26 at 3:34 PM, the Administrator reviewed the document and stated that no family could be found, the resident was not in a state to sign, and the facility did not offer the advanced directives information. The facility policy titled SS024: Residents' Rights Regarding Treatment and Advanced Directives, dated 08/15/2022, states that the facility will provide the resident or the resident’s representative information, in an easy-to-understand manner, about the right to refuse medical or surgical treatment and to formulate an advanced directive.
Failure to Provide Written Emergency Transfer Notice With Appeal Rights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident 9 and the resident representative were provided a written emergency transfer notice that included appeal rights when the resident was sent to the hospital. Resident 9 was admitted on 03/27/26 and had an MDS assessment with a BIMS score of 0 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. On 04/08/26, an SBAR note documented a change in condition when the resident was found with copious amounts of pus from the G-tube site, and both the medical provider and the resident representative were notified. The medical provider ordered the resident to be transported immediately to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. Record review found no evidence that the resident and/or the resident representative were given a written emergency transfer notice with appeal rights related to the transfer/discharge. During interview, the Administrator stated he was unaware of the requirement for a transfer/discharge notice along with the appeal requirements. The facility policy stated that the transfer or discharge notice would be provided to the resident and resident representative in a language and manner they could understand and would include the right to appeal the transfer or discharge to the State, the State entity contact information, how to obtain an appeal form, and how to obtain assistance in completing and submitting the appeal hearing request.
Care plan omitted comfort care for a resident receiving palliative care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan to include comfort care for Resident R110. Review of the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 09/20/25 showed the resident had a BIMS unable to perform, indicating severe cognitive impairment, and listed diagnoses including hypertensive heart disease, hypertensive chronic kidney disease stage four, and palliative care. The resident’s comprehensive care plan, initiated on 03/14/25, did not include comfort care. During interviews, an LPN stated that a resident receiving comfort care should be included on the care plan so staff know the care needed. The MDSC also stated comfort care should be included on the care plan so staff know the resident’s needs. The DON confirmed that comfort measures were not listed as care needs on R110’s care plan and stated the care plan lets all nursing staff know how to properly take care of a resident; the DON also stated that not including comfort care could lead to staff providing cares that may cause unnecessary cares being provided. The facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans stated that a comprehensive person-centered care plan should be developed and implemented for each resident and include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident’s medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment.
Failure to Complete Required Admission and Weekly Weights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its weight monitoring policy for one resident who was admitted with dysphagia, Parkinson's disease, and dependence on enteral tube feeding for total nutrition support. The resident's admission record showed a weight of 105 pounds, and the MDS documented moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 11 out of 15. The record did not contain evidence that the resident was weighed each week for four weeks after admission, and the resident was not weighed again before the RD completed the nutritional assessment on 04/20/26, when the resident's current body weight was documented as 104.8 pounds and the BMI was underweight. The RD noted on admission that the resident was at risk for malnutrition related to dependence on enteral feeding, dysphagia, and low BMI, and recommended that the resident's weight be done per facility protocol. The care plan also identified risk for malnutrition and included weight monitoring per facility protocol and/or interdisciplinary team recommendation. During interviews, the RD stated she was unaware of the facility's weight policy and acknowledged she had not obtained another weight before completing her assessment. An LPN stated new admissions are weighed daily for three days then weekly for four weeks, but could not explain why this resident had not been weighed since admission. The DON acknowledged the resident's weights had not been done per facility policy and stated the resident missed two weeks of being weighed.
Oxygen concentrator filters not maintained
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure oxygen concentrators were maintained in accordance with manufacturer specifications for two residents receiving oxygen therapy. On 04/20/2026, R38 was observed in his room receiving oxygen via nasal cannula, and the oxygen concentrator in his room had a build-up of grey debris on the external surface of the filter. Later that same day, R87 was observed lying in bed in her room, and her oxygen concentrator had a solid layer of grey debris across the entire external surface of the filter. During interview, LPN 3 observed the filters in both rooms and confirmed there was a build-up of grey debris on the filters and that there should not be. When asked who was responsible for maintenance of the oxygen concentrator filters, LPN 3 stated he did not know. The DON stated that Maintenance was responsible for cleaning the oxygen concentrator filters and, when asked if there was a schedule for cleaning them, stated, "They know." The facility policy required staff to follow manufacturer recommendations for cleaning filters and servicing the device, and the manufacturer’s service manual stated the air filter should be inspected periodically and cleaned as needed by the user.
Failure to Document Provider Response to Pharmacist Medication Review Recommendation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the provider responded in a timely manner to the consulting pharmacist’s recommendation for one resident reviewed for unnecessary medications. The resident had an admission diagnosis of schizophrenia unspecified, and the quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 14 out of 15 with no behavioral symptoms, no physical behavioral issues toward others, no verbal behaviors toward others, and no behavioral symptoms toward self. The resident’s EMR pharmacy review dated 02/18/26 showed orders for risperidone 3 mg, mirtazapine 7.5 mg at bedtime, and fluoxetine 40 mg daily. The consulting pharmacist recommended, if clinically appropriate, considering a gradual dose reduction and perhaps discontinuing risperidone and mirtazapine, or considering risperidone 2.5 mg at bedtime and mirtazapine 15 mg at bedtime. The pharmacy review form did not show a provider response to the recommendation. During interview, the consulting pharmacist stated that after a resident has been admitted on psychotropic medications for six months, it is his practice to consider a GDR. The DON stated that pharmacist recommendations go to the unit managers for follow-up with the provider and confirmed there was no evidence in the EMR that the provider responded. The physician stated he would prefer the psychiatrist to receive recommendations regarding psychiatric medications, but in this case the recommendation had been made to him, and he believed it may have been rerouted in the wrong direction. The facility policy required staff to act upon medication regimen review irregularities and to follow up on non-urgent irregularities within 30 days of receiving the recommendation.
Failure to Offer Pneumococcal Vaccinations in Accordance With CDC Guidance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to offer two residents, R25 and R51, or their representatives, the opportunity to receive flu and/or pneumococcal vaccinations in accordance with nationally recognized standards. A review of the facility’s Patient Vaccination View/Audit showed R25 was overdue for the pneumococcal vaccine, and the resident’s EMR indicated admission on 03/23/23 and a quarterly MDS with a BIMS score of 9 out of 15, showing moderate cognitive impairment; the assessment also indicated the pneumococcal vaccine was not up to date. For R51, the vaccination audit showed prior receipt of PCV13 on 07/23/15 and PPSV23 on 10/18/16, while the EMR showed admission on 10/29/24 and a quarterly MDS with a BIMS score of 3 out of 15, showing severe cognitive impairment; that assessment also indicated the pneumococcal vaccine was not up to date. During interview, the Infection Preventionist and DON stated they were not familiar with the CDC’s current recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines. Review of the CDC PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor guidance indicated that one dose of PCV15, PCV20, or PCV21 is recommended, and that pneumococcal vaccination is complete with PCV20 or PCV21, or after PCV15 given at least 1 year after the last PPSV23 dose. The facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccine stated that residents and staff are to be offered immunization against pneumococcal disease in accordance with current CDC guidelines and recommendations.
Medication Error Leads to Resident Overdose
Penalty
Summary
The facility staff failed to ensure that a resident was free from unnecessary medication, resulting in a significant medication error. A resident was prescribed 500 mg of intravenous Acyclovir every 12 hours for encephalitis. However, the staff administered ten times the prescribed dose, giving the resident 5 grams of Acyclovir instead of the intended 500 mg. This error was discovered after the resident exhibited symptoms of shortness of breath and altered mental status, leading to their transfer to the hospital for evaluation. The error occurred due to a misunderstanding by the LPN who administered the medication. The LPN misinterpreted the instructions from the pharmacist and believed that ten vials of Acyclovir, each containing 50 mg/mL, were needed to achieve the prescribed dose. The LPN failed to verify the medication order with the provider, nurse supervisor, or Director of Nursing, leading to the administration of an overdose. The pharmacist's instructions were misunderstood, and the LPN did not recognize the discrepancy between the vial's concentration and the prescribed dose. The resident, an 88-year-old female with a history of encephalopathy and HSV encephalitis, was critically affected by the overdose. She was admitted to the hospital with acute kidney injury and acyclovir-induced nephrotoxicity. The hospital records confirmed that the overdose led to the resident's altered mental status and respiratory distress. Despite efforts to manage the overdose, the resident's condition deteriorated, and the family eventually elected for comfort measures, leading to the resident's passing.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility staff failed to implement proper infection control practices for a resident who required enhanced barrier precautions. Specifically, a licensed practical nurse (LPN) was observed administering intravenous (IV) medication to a resident with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line without wearing a gown, despite a physician's order for enhanced barrier precautions. The resident was receiving Unasyn for empyema, and a sign on the resident's door clearly indicated the need for enhanced barrier precautions, including the use of gloves and a gown during high-contact resident care activities. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that the protocol for residents with IV lines includes wearing gloves and a gown to protect the resident. The facility's policy and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines both emphasize the importance of enhanced barrier precautions to reduce the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in nursing homes. The deficiency was brought to the attention of the facility's administrative staff, including the Administrator and the Director of Nursing.
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 1,062 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 14 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 Falls Church
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arleigh Burke Pavilion | 1.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Cherrydale Health & Rehabilitation Center | 3.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| The Jefferson | 3.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 43 | 3 |
| August Healthcare At Iliff | 3.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Sibley Mem Hosp Renaissance | 3.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Vierra Falls Church.
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 August 2026) and official state health department websites.