Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around June 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of October 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Park View Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not complete weekly comprehensive skin assessments for two residents with skin breakdown/pressure injuries. One resident with diabetes and dementia developed a worsening left heel wound that progressed from peeling skin to an open, weeping, bleeding area, but the record lacked consistent wound bed description, drainage details, and staging. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment had a chronic buttock area described as shearing or discoloration, yet weekly wound assessments were not found, and staff relied on progress notes and treatment entries instead of comprehensive documentation.
A facility failed to keep complete and accurate charting for two residents after falls. Progress notes and care plans referenced falls, pain, ER transfers, and neuro checks, but the actual fall details, timing, location, resident position, and immediate interventions were kept in risk management documents instead of the medical record. Staff and the DON stated the fall investigations were separate from the chart, and one resident had dementia while the other had severe cognitive impairment and a prior hip fracture.
Surveyors found multiple food safety failures in the LTC kitchen, including staff mixing hot food with cooled leftovers, failing to document food temps, and storing many items without open or use-by dates. Staff also entered the kitchen without proper hair/beard restraints and handled clean dishes while wearing contaminated clothing after washing dirty dishes.
Medication Error Rate Exceeded 5 Percent Due to Improper Insulin Administration. An LPN administered insulin to a resident with type 2 DM in the deltoid muscle instead of the ordered sub-Q tissue. The resident’s orders called for Insulin Glargine daily and Novolog per sliding scale sub-Q, but the surveyor observed both doses given in the deltoid. The DON stated insulin should be given in fattier subcutaneous areas and that this was not the facility’s typical practice.
The facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation after a resident with cognitive impairment was kissed without consent by another resident. Despite the facility's policy requiring interviews with other residents to rule out further abuse, no such interviews were conducted. The DON and NHA did not believe additional investigation was necessary, relying on their knowledge of the resident's behavior. This resulted in an incomplete investigation and a deficiency in the facility's abuse prevention efforts.
A Dietary Aide in an LTC facility was observed handling ready-to-eat foods with bare hands and failing to perform adequate hand hygiene during breakfast service, affecting five residents. The aide did not use tongs or gloves as required by facility policy and the FDA Food Code, and did not wash hands after handling dirty dishes before returning to food preparation tasks. The Dietary Manager confirmed the aide's actions were against established guidelines.
The facility failed to adhere to infection control protocols, as staff did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes during wound care and after glove removal following a resident's bath. A resident with chronic Moisture Associated Skin Damage received wound care from an RN who did not sanitize hands between glove changes. Additionally, a CNA applied lotion to a resident's skin without performing hand hygiene after removing gloves post-bath.
Incomplete Weekly Skin Assessments for Two Residents with Pressure Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The facility did not ensure that two residents with pressure injuries or skin breakdown received weekly comprehensive skin assessments with staging and wound descriptions consistent with the facility’s skin management policy. The policy required weekly skin assessments, prompt reporting of skin injury, and wound assessments documenting wound type, tissue type, stage, size, depth, appearance, exudate, treatment, and related factors. Survey findings showed that the facility relied on narrative notes and treatment entries, but did not complete the required comprehensive weekly assessments for either resident. One resident, who had diagnoses including diabetes, dementia, and an acquired absence of the right foot, developed a left heel skin problem that began as peeling skin and progressed to an open wound with bleeding, weeping, maceration, and changing measurements over time. The record showed multiple progress notes and treatment entries describing the heel as an open blister or wound, but the facility did not document a comprehensive wound assessment with wound bed description, drainage, or staging. The DON stated the facility completed weekly skin checks and that nurses would not stage wounds, and the surveyor found the charting was not comprehensive and lacked consistent wound description, drainage, and staging. The second resident had dementia, severe cognitive impairment, dependence for all ADLs, and a history of buttock skin injury. The record showed a chronic buttock area described as purple, shearing, or discoloration, with foam dressing orders and weekly skin check instructions, but the surveyor could not find weekly wound assessments. Staff told the surveyor that the DON would complete weekly wound assessments, while the DON stated nurses should monitor wounds in progress notes and did not expect weekly documentation if the area was not open. Because the facility did not complete weekly comprehensive skin assessments, the surveyor could not determine the wound type, whether it was present on admission, whether treatments were consistent, or whether the area healed and reopened.
Incomplete Fall Documentation in Resident Medical Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for two residents by not fully documenting fall events and the immediate interventions taken after those falls. The deficiency was identified through record review, interview, and review of the facility’s fall assessment policy, which required documentation of the incident, outcome, clinical findings, and related interventions in the resident’s EMAR and care plan. The report states that fall investigations were kept in risk management and not included in the residents’ medical records, and staff described the fall documentation process as being separate from the chart. One resident had diagnoses including fracture of the neck of the left femur, type 2 diabetes mellitus, acquired absence of the right foot, and dementia, with moderately impaired cognition on MDS. The resident’s chart contained progress notes referencing falls or fall risk evaluations, but several entries did not document when the falls occurred or describe the event. For one fall, the chart noted the resident had slid out of bed with no noted injury and that neuro checks were discontinued, but the record did not fully describe the fall circumstances. For another event, the chart documented the resident lying in bed with a leg hanging off the bed, reporting pain and stating they had tripped, but the record still lacked a complete fall description in the medical record. The facility’s risk management investigation documented the date, time, and details of the fall, but the DON stated those investigations were not part of the medical record. The second resident had severe cognitive impairment and was admitted after hospitalization for a fall with hip fracture requiring surgery. The resident’s record included care plan interventions related to fall risk, but the surveyor could not find documentation of several falls in the medical record even though progress notes referenced related events such as pain, transfer to the ER, and hip injury. The facility’s risk management fall investigations contained the actual fall descriptions, including the resident found on the floor, the resident’s statements about slipping or trying to get up, the immediate transfer back to bed, neuro checks, vital signs, and ER transfer. The DON stated the facility had switched electronic health record systems and that she had started adding information to the fall investigations later, while also stating that the fall investigations were risk management documents and not part of the medical record.
Food Storage, Temperature Monitoring, and Cross-Contamination Failures
Penalty
Summary
The facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, and served using proper food handling practices. During observation, policy review, and staff interviews, surveyors found that staff mixed hot food with cooled leftovers in the same containers instead of keeping them separate. On 9/23/25, a cook placed food returned from kitchenette steam tables into containers that already held cooled food, including rice, vegetables, and meat with gravy. The surveyor observed temperatures of 139 F and 124 F for rice, and 161 F and 124 F for meat and gravy, and the cook combined the foods and returned them to the cooler with lids ajar. The temperatures taken during this process were not recorded or logged. Surveyors also observed multiple food items in the kitchen cooler and dry storage that were not labeled with open dates, use-by dates, or other identifying information. Items included chicken patties, sauces, frozen and refrigerated meats, oatmeal, crackers, cereal stored in unlabeled bags, and bulk dessert mixes removed from original packaging and placed into bins without a facility-created label showing date of receipt or use-by date. Staff stated that some items were used quickly or identified by lot number, but the surveyor observed that several items had no visible date or label and could not be matched to a use date. Additional observations showed staff not following food safety practices during kitchen operations. A maintenance supervisor entered the kitchen with a hair net worn incorrectly and no beard net despite having a full beard. Staff also did not consistently take and document food temperatures before serving meals from the kitchenettes, and temperature logs were not maintained for food served from those areas. In another observation, dietary staff handled dirty dishes while wearing contaminated clothing and then touched clean dishes without changing clothing or using a barrier between dirty and clean tasks.
Medication Error Rate Exceeded 5 Percent Due to Improper Insulin Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility did not ensure its medication error rate remained below 5 percent; the reported medication error rate was 5.88 percent. During observation, LPN C administered insulin to R17 in the deltoid muscle instead of the subcutaneous tissue ordered by the physician. R17 was admitted with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, and the physician’s orders specified Insulin Glargine 14 units sub-Q daily and Novolog (Aspart) 100 unit/ml variable doses per sliding scale sub-Q three times a day. On 09/23/25 at 7:19 AM, the surveyor observed LPN C administer Lantus 14 units into the left deltoid muscle and Aspart 2 units into the right deltoid muscle. Later, the DON stated insulin should be given in fattier subcutaneous areas and that it was not the facility’s typical practice to administer insulin in the deltoid region.
Failure to Conduct Thorough Abuse Investigation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation following an incident of alleged abuse involving two residents. Resident R2, who has Alzheimer's and cognitive impairment, was kissed on the mouth by R1 without proper consent. The facility's policy requires a comprehensive investigation, including interviews with other residents who may have been affected. However, the facility did not interview other residents to rule out further incidents of abuse, nor did they document any efforts to ensure that other residents had no contact with R1. Interviews with the Director of Nursing and the Nursing Home Administrator revealed that they did not believe it was necessary to interview other residents, as they felt confident in their knowledge of R1's behavior and history. Despite R1's previous interactions with another resident, the facility did not take additional steps to investigate potential abuse involving other residents. The lack of interviews and documentation indicates a failure to adhere to the facility's abuse prevention policy, resulting in an incomplete investigation.
Improper Food Handling and Hygiene Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards for food service safety, as observed by surveyors. Dietary Aide (DA) C was seen handling ready-to-eat foods with bare hands, which is against the facility's policy and the FDA Food Code. DA C picked up biscuits and toast with bare hands, cut them, and served them to residents without using tongs or gloves. This improper handling of food was observed during breakfast service in the 100-hall dining room, affecting five residents. Additionally, DA C did not perform adequate hand hygiene during the breakfast service and cleanup. After handling dirty dishes, DA C failed to wash hands before returning to food preparation tasks. Instead, DA C wiped hands on the uniform and continued to handle food and clean dishes. This lack of proper handwashing was noted multiple times during the observation period, including after handling dirty dishes and before serving food to residents. The Dietary Manager (DM) E confirmed that DA C was not following the facility's policy or the FDA Food Code for safe food handling. DM E acknowledged that DA C had been educated on hand hygiene and the prohibition of bare hand contact with ready-to-eat foods but did not adhere to these guidelines during the observed breakfast service. The deficiency was noted in the handling of food and the transition between dirty and clean tasks without proper handwashing.
Infection Control Deficiencies in Hand Hygiene Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by improper hand hygiene practices during wound care and bathing observations. During a wound care procedure for a resident with chronic Moisture Associated Skin Damage (MASD), a registered nurse (RN) did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes. The RN removed old dressings, cleaned the area, and applied new dressings without using hand sanitizer or washing hands between glove changes, contrary to the facility's Hand Hygiene Policy and Procedure. This lapse in protocol was confirmed by the Director of Nursing (DON), who acknowledged that the RN did not follow the facility's policy. In another instance, a certified nursing assistant (CNA) failed to perform hand hygiene after removing gloves following a resident's bath. The CNA then applied lotion to the resident's skin with bare hands, reasoning that both the resident and her hands were clean post-bath. This action was inconsistent with proper infection control practices, as hand hygiene should be performed after glove removal, regardless of perceived cleanliness. These observations highlight deficiencies in adherence to infection control protocols by the facility staff.
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 78 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — 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 Woodville
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baldwin Care Center | 3.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 11 | 0 |
| Hammond Health Services | 7.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Spring Valley Health And Rehab Center | 8.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 13 | 0 |
| Glenhaven | 9.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 16 | 0 |
| Kinnic Health And Rehabilitation Center | 16.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Park View Home.
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 October 2026) and official state health department websites.