Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Brookdale Greenwood Village during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with sepsis, Alzheimer’s disease, repeated falls, and documented need for at least contact guard or stand‑by assist with a walker was allowed to ambulate outside unaccompanied. The care plan identified fall risk and general fall precautions but did not specify the required supervision level for ambulation, and therapy notes showed the resident was not cleared for independent ambulation, especially on uneven surfaces or outdoors. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding of the resident’s mobility status, incomplete special instructions regarding fall risk and assistance needs, and conflicting statements about whether the resident was considered safe to walk alone. The resident went outside alone, was later found on the ground near the parking lot with a newspaper and her walker nearby, reported tripping and falling, and was noted to have oral bleeding and pain with movement; hospital imaging confirmed facial bone and coccyx fractures.
The facility failed to provide adaptive dining equipment for three residents who required it. One resident with dysphagia and Alzheimer's disease used cups without handles, another with dysphagia and dementia used glass goblets and a soda can, and a third with multiple sclerosis was observed without a plate guard. The registered dietician confirmed the shortage of Kennedy cups and makeshift solutions being used.
The facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in a sanitary manner. Observations revealed improperly labeled and dated food items and inappropriate handling of ready-to-eat foods by a dietary aide, who did not perform hand hygiene or change gloves as required.
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program, leading to deficiencies in housekeeping protocols, isolation precautions, and hand hygiene practices. Housekeeping staff did not follow proper cleaning protocols, and staff did not use PPE correctly or offer hand hygiene to residents before meals. Additionally, the facility's water management plan was outdated and incomplete.
The facility failed to offer choices to two residents for their bathing schedules, assigning shower days based on room numbers rather than individual preferences. Both residents expressed discomfort and lack of autonomy in their bathing routines, and staff interviews confirmed that the schedules were pre-determined by the facility.
The facility failed to provide necessary personal hygiene services for two residents. One resident had long, soiled fingernails despite needing assistance, and another resident did not receive required help with oral hygiene, with no proper documentation in place.
The facility failed to ensure that two residents received care according to professional standards and their care plans. One resident did not have blood pressure and heart rate consistently assessed before administering Metoprolol, and another resident's weights were not obtained as ordered, with no reweigh conducted after a significant weight change.
The facility failed to provide proper foot care for two residents, one with severely overgrown and discolored toenails and another with an overgrown toenail, despite documented needs and requests for care. Staff were unclear about responsibilities and procedures for addressing these needs.
The facility failed to ensure an environment free from accident hazards for two residents at risk for falls by not maintaining their beds in the lowest position when they were in bed. Both residents were repeatedly found in high bed positions without staff present, despite being identified as fall risks and members of the Falling Star Program. The care plans for both residents did not document the need for the bed to be in the lowest position.
The facility failed to provide effective pain management for a resident, as they did not complete comprehensive pain assessments, document the resident's pain management goals, or consistently administer and evaluate the effectiveness of pain medications. The resident reported significant pain in her left knee, which was not adequately addressed in her care plan.
The facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors by not following physician-ordered parameters for midodrine administration for a resident. Despite orders to hold the medication if the systolic blood pressure (SBP) was above 120 mmHg, the medication was administered 26 times when the SBP was above this threshold, including three instances where the SBP was above 140 mmHg.
The facility failed to ensure medication carts were locked when unattended, as observed on two occasions. Medication carts were found unlocked with keys inserted, and no nurse was visible nearby. Staff interviews confirmed that carts should be locked at all times, and the DON acknowledged the issue and indicated steps were being taken to prevent future lapses.
The facility failed to ensure adequate hydration and provide the correct consistency of thickened liquids for two residents. One resident, with significant cognitive impairment, was given nectar thick liquids instead of honey thick liquids and had fluids out of reach, leading to dehydration. Another resident, with a history of aspiration problems, was given regular consistency water instead of nectar thick liquids. Staff interviews revealed a lack of understanding and adherence to the prescribed liquid consistencies.
The facility failed to administer the pneumococcal vaccination to a resident after consent was provided. The resident's electronic medical record indicated that the vaccination was not given, and the consent form was signed as verbal, indicating refusal, which contradicted the resident representative's interview. The infection preventionist and director of nursing confirmed the discrepancy and planned to contact the resident's representative to clarify their wishes.
The facility failed to post nurse staffing information in a prominent place accessible to residents and visitors. Observations revealed no staffing information posted on the third floor, and the Director of Nursing confirmed that the information was kept in binders behind the nurses' stations, restricted to facility and agency staff only.
Failure to Supervise High-Risk Resident During Ambulation Outside
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure adequate supervision and appropriate use of assistive devices to prevent accidents for a resident with known fall risk and mobility impairments. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including sepsis, unsteadiness on feet, generalized muscle weakness, repeated falls, and Alzheimer’s disease. A recent MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment, need for a walker, substantial to maximal assistance with toilet transfers, and partial to moderate assistance with walking 50 feet, with walking on uneven surfaces and curbs not attempted. The facility’s falls management policy required evaluation of fall risk and implementation of an IDT fall prevention plan for high‑risk residents, but the resident’s care plan, while identifying fall risk and listing general fall interventions, did not specify the level of supervision required for ambulation. Facility records and therapy documentation showed that the resident required at least contact guard or stand‑by assistance for ambulation and transfers and was not safe to ambulate independently, particularly on uneven surfaces or outside. A functional assessment documented use of a front‑wheel walker with contact guard assist on level surfaces and dependence on staff for uneven surfaces. PT notes described gait training with a front‑wheel walker and contact guard assist, need for verbal cueing for posture and step placement, impulsive transfer behavior despite maximal cues, and toilet transfers requiring minimal assistance and constant cueing. A social services note stated the resident required contact guard assist for all mobility. The director of rehabilitation later confirmed that the resident was not independent with ambulation, had not been cleared to walk independently in hallways or outside, and that therapy had not worked with her on uneven surfaces or curbs. On the day of the fall, documentation and interviews indicated the resident had been working with PT on gait training with stand‑by assist earlier in the evening. Nursing notes indicated the resident had a history of getting up unassisted, walking with her walker or holding onto furniture, and required frequent reminders that staff needed to be with her when walking; she was placed on frequent room checks for this behavior. That evening, staff last recalled seeing the resident near the nurses’ station before she went outside unaccompanied. She was later found on her back on the ground outside near the parking lot, approximately 30 feet from the front door, fully clothed with shoes on and holding a newspaper, with her walker nearby. She reported that she had tripped and fallen forward, hitting her head, and complained of pain when attempts were made to move her. She was noted to be bleeding from her mouth, and subsequent hospital imaging documented fractures of facial bone sockets and a closed coccyx fracture. The facility’s post‑event analysis identified that the resident went outside unaccompanied and was not using an assistive device at the time of the fall, with being unaccompanied outside listed as a contributing factor, despite her documented need for assistance and lack of clearance for independent ambulation, especially outdoors. Interviews with multiple staff members further demonstrated inconsistency and lack of clarity regarding the resident’s ambulation status and supervision needs. Some staff, including CNAs and LPNs, stated the resident was a one‑person assist and was not supposed to go outside alone, while the director of rehabilitation was initially documented in the facility’s investigation as saying the resident was safe to ambulate alone and go outside alone near the patio table, a statement later contradicted by therapy records and her own subsequent interview. The IDT post‑event analysis inaccurately documented that the resident ambulated with no problems with the use of a device. CNAs also reported that special instructions in the computer system did not always indicate fall risk status or required assistance level. The investigation interviews lacked documented dates and times, and there were discrepancies between RN accounts regarding whether one RN left the resident briefly with another family before obtaining additional help. Collectively, these documented actions and omissions show that the resident, known to be at high risk for falls and requiring at least stand‑by or contact guard assistance, was allowed to ambulate outside unaccompanied without clearly defined and communicated supervision parameters, resulting in a fall with fractures.
Failure to Provide Adaptive Dining Equipment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide accessible dining equipment and utensils for three residents who required adaptive equipment. Resident #22, diagnosed with dysphagia and Alzheimer's disease, was observed using cups without handles and a straw, contrary to the care plan that specified the use of a nosey cup and two-handled mug. Similarly, Resident #18, diagnosed with dysphagia, parkinsonism, and dementia, was observed using glass goblets and a soda can with a straw instead of the prescribed Kennedy cups and plate guard. The care plan for Resident #18 included occupational therapy screening and providing adaptive equipment as needed, which was not adhered to during the observations. Resident #1, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, was observed without a plate guard during lunch service, despite the care plan indicating the need for a plate guard and handled cups. The registered dietician (RD) confirmed that both dietary and nursing staff were responsible for ensuring residents received the necessary equipment. The RD also mentioned that the facility was running low on Kennedy cups and had been using makeshift solutions like plastic wrap over cups with straws. These observations and interviews indicate a failure to provide the required adaptive dining equipment as per the residents' care plans.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary Food Handling Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in a sanitary manner in two satellite kitchens. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that food was labeled, dated, and disposed of in a timely manner. Observations revealed an opened carton of soy milk with an expiration date of 1/21/24 and two opened Hormel thick and Easy Clear thickener drinks without any date of opening. The dietary manager discarded these items after review. The registered dietitian confirmed that opened containers should have an open-by and use-by date and that the soy milk should have been discarded by 1/21/24. Additionally, the facility failed to handle ready-to-eat foods appropriately. During the noon meal service, a dietary aide was observed placing serving utensils into pans with bare hands, failing to perform hand hygiene before donning gloves, and using the same gloved hands to handle various food items without changing gloves. The dietary manager confirmed that ready-to-eat foods should be handled with utensils or clean gloves.
Infection Control and Hygiene Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program, leading to several deficiencies across two units. Housekeeping staff did not follow proper cleaning protocols, such as cleaning from cleaner to dirtier areas and changing gloves and performing hand hygiene between cleaning the bathroom and bedroom. Observations revealed that the housekeeping supervisor cleaned the toilet before the sink and did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene after cleaning the bathroom and before handling other cleaning supplies. Interviews with the housekeeping supervisor and the infection preventionist confirmed these lapses in protocol, which could potentially spread bacteria or viruses within the facility. The facility also failed to ensure proper isolation precautions and the appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Observations showed that a certified nurse aide (CNA) did not don an N95 mask before entering a COVID-19 positive resident's room, and another staff member wore a surgical mask under an N95 mask, contrary to CDC guidelines. Interviews with the infection preventionist confirmed that staff should wear an N95 mask before entering a COVID-19 positive room and should not wear a surgical mask underneath. Additionally, the facility did not ensure that staff performed hand hygiene or offered it to residents before meals. Observations in the dining room and resident rooms showed that staff did not offer hand hygiene to residents before serving meals. The dietary manager and the director of nursing acknowledged that hand hygiene should be performed before meals and that hand wipes were previously used but had been discontinued. Furthermore, the facility's water management plan was outdated and lacked specific details, such as the current staff responsible for the plan and a complete diagram of the water system. Interviews with the nursing home administrator and interim maintenance director revealed that the plan had not been reviewed or updated to reflect the current staff and facility layout.
Failure to Offer Resident Choice in Bathing Schedule
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to offer choices to residents for activities of daily living (ADL), specifically in ensuring that two residents received showers according to their preferred frequency. Resident #1, who has multiple sclerosis, respiratory failure, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, reported that she did not have a choice of when she bathed and had to take her bed bath when it was offered or it would not be done. The resident's bath days were pre-determined by the facility and not re-offered if missed. Similarly, Resident #23, who has heart failure, respiratory failure, cataracts, and arthritis, stated that her shower days were assigned to her and she did not have any choice about her shower preferences, which were dependent on staff workload rather than her own preferences. Both residents expressed discomfort with the current shower assignments and felt they lacked autonomy in their bathing schedules. Staff interviews corroborated the residents' statements, revealing that bathing schedules were assigned based on room numbers and not individual resident preferences. CNA #2 and CNA #3 confirmed that residents did not choose their shower days, which were scheduled upon admission based on room assignments. The Director of Nursing (DON) claimed that residents had choices for when they bathed and that the shower assignment sheet was merely a guideline. However, the evidence from resident and staff interviews indicated that the facility's practice did not align with the DON's statement, as residents' shower days and times were indeed assigned according to their room numbers, limiting their ability to exercise self-determination in their daily care routines.
Failure to Provide Necessary Personal Hygiene Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for two residents. Resident #49, a 77-year-old with diagnoses including alcohol abuse and adult failure to thrive, required partial to moderate assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). Observations revealed that Resident #49's fingernails were long, discolored, and visibly soiled with a dark substance under several nails. Despite the resident's attempts to trim his own nails and the comprehensive care plan indicating the need for nail care, staff did not offer assistance. Interviews with CNAs and an LPN confirmed that Resident #49's nails were overgrown and unclean, and the facility's nail care policy was not provided for review. Resident #23, over the age of 65 with diagnoses including heart failure, respiratory failure, cataracts, and arthritis, required substantial assistance with oral hygiene. The resident reported needing help with setting up oral care supplies and stated that staff often forgot to assist with brushing her teeth. The comprehensive care plan did not document the resident's oral care assistance needs, and there was no documentation in the electronic medical record indicating that the resident received the necessary assistance. Interviews with a CNA, an LPN, and the DON confirmed the lack of proper documentation and assistance for Resident #23's oral care.
Failure to Monitor Vitals and Obtain Weights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and their comprehensive person-centered care plans. For Resident #47, the facility did not consistently assess and document blood pressure and heart rate prior to administering Metoprolol, a beta-blocker medication. This failure occurred on multiple occasions in March 2024, and there was no documentation indicating that the resident's vitals were assessed before the medication was held on one occasion. Interviews with staff revealed that the electronic charting system did not prompt nurses to document the resident's vitals due to incorrect input of the physician's order, and there was a lack of proper documentation by CNAs as well. For Resident #16, the facility did not obtain weights according to the physician's orders. The resident, who had multiple comorbidities including hemiplegia, diabetes, and heart failure, was supposed to be weighed weekly for three weeks following admission. However, weights were not consistently documented, and there was no reweigh conducted when a significant weight change was noted. Additionally, there was no documentation that the provider or registered dietitian was notified about the missed weights or the weight change. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Registered Dietitian (RD) confirmed that the facility's policy required weights to be obtained and documented, and any refusals or discrepancies should be addressed promptly. The RD emphasized the importance of accurate weight monitoring for understanding the resident's health status. The failure to follow these protocols led to deficiencies in the care provided to both residents.
Failure to Provide Proper Foot Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper foot care for two residents, Resident #49 and Resident #16, as per the standards of practice. Resident #49, a 77-year-old male with diagnoses including alcohol abuse and adult failure to thrive, had severely overgrown and discolored toenails, with one toenail curving completely over the toe pad. Despite being signed up for podiatry services, there was no documentation of him receiving these services, and staff interviews revealed uncertainty about whether he had been offered additional podiatry services after initially refusing them. The care plan and physician notes indicated a need for nail care, but this was not adequately addressed by the facility staff. Resident #16, who had multiple diagnoses including hemiplegia, hemiparesis, diabetes mellitus type two, and severe cognitive impairment, also did not receive proper foot care. Her left big toenail was observed to be significantly overgrown, and despite her expressing a desire for nail care, there was no documentation in her electronic medical record indicating that her nail care needs were addressed. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness about her condition and a misunderstanding of responsibilities regarding nail care for diabetic residents. The facility's policy and procedure for foot care were requested but not provided, and there was a general lack of clarity among staff about the process for identifying and addressing residents' need for podiatry services. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the deficiencies and indicated that assessments for ancillary services were done at least annually, but this did not translate into timely and effective care for the residents in question.
Failure to Maintain Bed Position for Fall-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an environment free from accident hazards for two residents, both of whom were at risk for falls. Specifically, the facility did not maintain the beds of Resident #6 and Resident #41 in the lowest position when the residents were in bed, as required by the facility's Falls Management and Falling Star Program policies. Observations revealed that both residents were repeatedly found in beds that were in a high position without staff present, despite being identified as fall risks and members of the Falling Star Program. Resident #6, who had severe cognitive impairment and required substantial assistance with daily activities, was observed on multiple occasions lying in bed with the bed in a high position. The resident's care plan, which identified the resident as a fall risk and a member of the Falling Star Program, did not document the need for the bed to be in the lowest position when the resident was in bed. The DON confirmed that the bed should have been in the lowest position and adjusted it accordingly during the survey. Similarly, Resident #41, who had moderate cognitive impairment and required substantial assistance with daily activities, was also observed lying in bed with the bed in a high position on multiple occasions. The resident's care plan identified the resident as a fall risk and a member of the Falling Star Program but failed to document the need for the bed to be in the lowest position. Staff interviews revealed a lack of consistent understanding and adherence to the facility's protocol for maintaining bed positions for fall-risk residents.
Failure to Provide Effective Pain Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an effective pain management regime for a resident, identified as Resident #216, who required such services. The facility did not complete a comprehensive pain assessment that identified the onset, presence, and duration of the resident's pain. Additionally, the resident's goal for pain management and acceptable level of pain were not documented. The care plan did not specify the location of the resident's pain or include non-pharmacological interventions to help alleviate the pain. The resident reported significant pain in her left knee, which was not adequately addressed in her care plan or pain assessments. The medication administration record (MAR) revealed inconsistencies in the administration of pain medications. Oxycodone was not administered on several occasions, and there was no documentation explaining why the medication was not given or if the physician was notified. The resident's pain levels were not consistently assessed before or after the administration of acetaminophen and oxycodone, and there was no follow-up to determine the effectiveness of these medications. The resident's pain levels were frequently above five out of ten, indicating that the pain management interventions were not effective. Interviews with staff, including an LPN and the DON, highlighted gaps in the facility's pain management practices. The LPN acknowledged that the resident was in pain and that the pain was primarily in her left knee. However, the pain medication orders were not updated to reflect this. The DON confirmed that pain assessments should be completed every shift and should cover various aspects of the resident's pain, but these assessments were not adequately documented for Resident #216. The DON also noted that the facility had an emergency medication stock, but it was unclear why the resident did not receive her prescribed oxycodone on certain days.
Failure to Follow Physician-Ordered Parameters for Midodrine Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were free from significant medication errors, specifically in the administration of midodrine for Resident #265. The resident, who was over the age of 65 and had diagnoses including myelodysplastic syndrome, orthostatic hypotension, and high cholesterol, was prescribed midodrine to be administered three times a day with the condition that it should be held if the systolic blood pressure (SBP) was above 120 mmHg. However, the February medication administration record (MAR) documented 26 instances where midodrine was administered despite the resident's SBP being above the physician-ordered parameter, including three instances where the SBP was above 140 mmHg. Interviews with facility staff, including an LPN, the DON, the pharmacist, and the medical director, confirmed that medication orders, including blood pressure parameters, should always be followed. The staff acknowledged the importance of adhering to these parameters to prevent adverse effects, such as elevated blood pressure. The failure to follow the physician's orders for midodrine administration led to significant medication errors, as documented in the report.
Medication Cart Security Lapses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals were properly stored in accordance with professional standards on two of six medication carts. Specifically, the medication carts were left unlocked when unattended. On one occasion, a medication cart in the middle hallway of the third floor was observed with keys inserted and dangling from the lock in the unlocked position, with no nurse visible nearby. This situation persisted for several minutes until an LPN returned, acknowledged the mistake, and secured the cart. On another occasion, a medication cart in the left hallway of the third floor was also found unlocked and unattended for several minutes until another LPN returned and locked it. Interviews with staff confirmed that medication carts should be locked at all times and keys should never be left in the carts. The LPNs involved admitted to the lapses, and the Director of Nursing (DON) reiterated the policy that medication carts must be properly secured and that nurses should always have the keys in their possession. The DON indicated that steps were being taken to prevent such occurrences in the future.
Failure to Ensure Adequate Hydration and Correct Liquid Consistency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate hydration for two residents, Resident #31 and Resident #266, by not encouraging fluid intake and not providing the correct consistency of thickened liquids as per physician's orders. Resident #31, who had significant cognitive impairment and required maximum assistance with eating and drinking, was observed with fluids out of reach and was given nectar thick liquids instead of the prescribed honey thick liquids. This resident had a history of dehydration and was receiving IV fluids for suspected dehydration, yet her fluid intake was not adequately monitored or recorded in the medical record. Staff interviews revealed a lack of understanding of the differences between nectar and honey thick liquids, and the resident's fluid intake was not properly tracked or encouraged as per the facility's policy. The resident's representative also noted that the resident needed fluids within reach, which was not consistently done. Resident #266, who had moderate cognitive impairment and a history of aspiration problems, was observed with regular consistency water and an Ensure nutritional shake instead of the prescribed nectar thick liquids. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident required nectar thick liquids, but there was a failure to provide the correct consistency, posing a risk of aspiration. The speech language pathologist's evaluation and physician's orders clearly indicated the need for nectar thick liquids, yet this was not adhered to by the facility staff. The facility's policies on thickened liquids and hydration were not followed, leading to these deficiencies. The director of nursing and registered dietitian acknowledged the importance of providing the correct liquid consistency to prevent aspiration and the need for monitoring fluid intake, but there was a lack of proper implementation and communication among the staff. The facility's failure to ensure residents received the correct consistency of liquids and adequate hydration resulted in potential health risks for the residents involved.
Failure to Administer Pneumococcal Vaccination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement policies and procedures related to pneumococcal immunizations for one of the five residents reviewed for immunizations. Specifically, the facility did not administer the pneumococcal vaccination to Resident #6 after consent was provided. According to the CDC's Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults, individuals over the age of 65 should receive one dose of PCV15 followed by PPSV23 or one dose of PCV20 if they lack documentation of vaccination or evidence of past infection. Resident #6, who was over the age of 65 and had diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, osteoporosis, and gout, did not receive the pneumococcal vaccination despite the resident representative's desire for the resident to be up to date on all vaccinations. The resident's electronic medical record revealed that the pneumococcal vaccination was not administered, and the consent form was signed as verbal, indicating refusal, which contradicted the resident representative's interview stating they wanted the resident to receive the vaccination. The infection preventionist (IP) and director of nursing (DON) were interviewed and confirmed that it was unclear who refused the vaccines on the consent form. The IP, who started working at the facility in January 2024, stated that the nurse was responsible for offering the necessary immunizations and obtaining consent. If a resident was eligible for a vaccine but did not want it, they would sign the consent indicating refusal. However, in this case, the consent form for Resident #6 was not signed by the family representative, leading to confusion about the resident's vaccination status. The IP and DON acknowledged the discrepancy and planned to contact the resident's representative to confirm their wishes regarding the vaccinations.
Failure to Post Nurse Staffing Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that nurse staffing information was posted in a prominent place, readily accessible to residents and visitors. Observations on 3/26/24 at 4:01 p.m. revealed no nurse staff posting on the third floor, where a binder labeled 'staffing information' was found but restricted to facility and agency staff only. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed on 3/28/24 at 10:07 a.m. that the staffing information was typically posted at the nurses' station or on a board near the nurses' station, but it was currently in binders located behind the nurses' stations on the second and third floors. The DON was unsure why the binder was restricted and acknowledged that the nursing staffing schedule was not posted in a visible area for residents and visitors to view.
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 358 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 6 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 Greenwood Village
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suites At Holly Creek Care Center, The | 2.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Orchard Park Health Care Center | 2.2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Suites At Someren Glen Care Center, The | 2.7 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Beth Israel At Shalom Park | 3.6 mi | — | 10 | 0 |
| Hampden Hills Post Acute | 4.9 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Brookdale Greenwood Village.
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.