Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around December 2026
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 Coral Bay At Pensacola, Llc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to adequately assess and mitigate the risk posed by a resident with a documented history of aggressive and violent behaviors who was roomed with a cognitively impaired, non-verbal, limited-mobility roommate. Staff had observed the aggressive resident verbally cursing at the vulnerable roommate and described prior incidents of verbal abuse, threats toward other residents, and sufficient physical strength to move others, yet there was no documentation of enhanced supervision or targeted precautions for the vulnerable resident. After the vulnerable resident was found with significant bleeding, lacerations, and later diagnosed intracranial bleeding, facility leadership initially attributed the injuries to bed rails and the resident’s own teeth and did not include the aggressive roommate in the incident investigation, despite the aggressive history and later acknowledgment that the cheek puncture wounds could not have been self-inflicted.
The deficiency concerns the facility’s failure to thoroughly investigate several abuse-related incidents. In one case, a resident sustained facial lacerations and an intracranial hemorrhage, and leadership attributed the injuries to self-inflicted contact with bed siderails without investigating a former roommate known to have aggressive behaviors, despite external concerns about that roommate’s violent history. In another incident, a staff member reported seeing a CNA pull a resident by the wheelchair arm and yell at him, but the facility deemed the allegation unsubstantiated after the reporting employee resigned and conducted no further inquiry. In a third case, a resident reported that an RN threw a clipboard at him, resulting in a hand bruise, yet the facility relied on a reported retraction and the resident’s decision not to press charges to label the allegation unsubstantiated and document “confabulation,” even though the resident later stated he had not retracted the allegation and the only written investigation was a brief statement from the Risk Manager.
Surveyors found that the facility did not ensure accurate, resident-centered assessments and care plans when leadership directed the addition and repeated use of the term "confabulation" in several residents’ care plans and nursing notes without clear clinical rationale. One resident had confabulation added to the care plan after retracting an abuse allegation, another had a grievance about delayed incontinence care characterized as involving "some sort of confabulation," a third had multiple refusals of care documented as confabulation, and a fourth was described as confabulating after requesting to be changed again. The DSS, Administrator, and DON could not provide adequate justification for this pattern of documentation.
Surveyors found that staff documentation did not accurately reflect the actual condition and care needs of three residents. One paraplegic, bed-bound resident was charted as ambulating and transferring independently or with minimal assistance, despite staff confirming he was unable to walk or transfer. Another resident was documented on CNA flow sheets as independent with toileting, transfers, and lower body dressing and as having call light access and fluids at the hospital, while her care plan and staff interview described her as totally dependent with limited movement and needing feeding assistance. A third resident was charted as independent with toilet transfers and having no behaviors, even though nursing notes described episodes of yelling and screaming, the care plan showed total assistance needs and non-ambulatory status, and observation revealed he could not reposition himself in bed; a CNA stated he required total care and that behaviors were reported to nursing and recorded on a behavior flow sheet.
Staff used personal cell phones to photograph and video a resident experiencing pain and behavioral changes, as well as to routinely capture wound images, and then texted these images to the NP for assessment and treatment recommendations. A RN and the Wound Care Nurse reported storing these images on their personal devices and were unaware of any signed consents authorizing this method of communication. The Administrator did not object to the practice for medical purposes but acknowledged she could not ensure confidentiality once images were on staff devices. Facility policy required explicit written consent for imaging, prohibited unauthorized transmission of resident images, and treated photographs as health care records, yet there was no evidence of resident consent, authorization, or secure, encrypted transmission for the use of personal devices.
A resident with cognitive impairment sustained facial puncture wounds from contact with bed side rails, requiring sutures and hospital transfer. Although facility leadership was aware of the incident, it was not reported to authorities until after an APS investigator arrived, well beyond the facility’s policy requirement to report suspected abuse or injury of unknown origin within 2 hours when serious bodily injury is involved. The Risk Manager acknowledged that staff are expected to immediately report suspected abuse and injuries of unknown origin, but provided no reason for the reporting delay, resulting in noncompliance with the facility’s abuse reporting policy.
A dietary aide reported witnessing a staff member verbally and physically mistreat a resident in a wheelchair and then experienced ongoing harassment and retaliatory behavior from nursing and kitchen staff, including threatening comments, refusal to sign meal-tray forms, and aggressive, profane interactions. The aide, described by a coworker as quiet and respectful, ultimately resigned by phone, citing fear for personal safety and difficulty identifying harassing staff because they were not wearing name badges. Leadership, including the Administrator, DON, Risk Manager, Unit Manager, and HR Director, acknowledged awareness of harassment concerns but did not conduct an investigation into the reported retaliation, despite a written policy requiring protection of individuals who report suspected abuse.
A resident with a history of physical aggression was involved in an incident where they struck a nurse. Although staff began 15-minute checks following the event, this enhanced monitoring was not documented in the care plan or as a physician order. Interviews with the DON, social worker, and MDS nurse confirmed the omission of this intervention from the care plan.
A facility failed to assess a resident's capability to self-administer medications before allowing him to do so. The resident was observed performing his own tracheostomy care and had an unsecured tube of mupirocin ointment. Despite the facility's policy requiring an interdisciplinary team assessment and documentation, no such assessment was conducted for this resident.
A resident with a contracted hand and limited range of motion did not receive proper nail care, resulting in excessively long fingernails. The resident's care plan indicated dependency on staff for personal hygiene, but there was no documentation of nail care being performed or refused. The facility's policy required regular nail maintenance to prevent infections, which was not adhered to in this case.
A resident was observed with an undated dressing on the left lower arm over several days, with no order or documentation in the EMR for the skin tear. The wound care nurse confirmed the lack of documentation, and the DON stated that nurses are expected to notify providers of new skin issues and obtain treatment orders, which should be documented in the EMR.
A resident receiving Magnesium Oxide four times daily did not have their magnesium levels monitored as ordered by the physician. Despite an order for a magnesium level check every six months, no monitoring or documented refusal was found in the resident's record. The DON confirmed the oversight, which was contrary to the facility's policy requiring staff to arrange for necessary tests.
The facility failed to properly dispose of garbage and refuse, as observed during inspections of the kitchen and outside garbage bins. Trash was found around the garbage compactor, and a cardboard box bin had a hole, allowing contents to be visible. The Dietary Manager and Administrator acknowledged these issues, which were not in compliance with the facility's policy requiring safe and efficient disposal practices.
A facility failed to implement Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP) for a resident with an ESBL urinary tract infection (UTI). The resident's room lacked TBP signage and isolation setup, confirmed by the unit manager and infection preventionist. The facility's policy requires TBP for transmissible infections, but there was no clear process for monitoring new infections when the infection preventionist was not on site.
Failure to Address Aggressive Roommate Risk and Provide Adequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure an environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and precautions for a vulnerable resident when roomed with another resident who had a documented history of aggressive and violent behaviors. Resident #1 was a cognitively impaired, non-verbal, limited-mobility adult who sustained unwitnessed physical injuries on 01/30/2026, including lacerations that required transfer to a higher level of care, suturing, and diagnostic testing that revealed intracranial bleeding. Resident #6, who moved into Resident #1’s room on 12/23/2025, had a clinical record documenting aggressive and violent behaviors such as yelling and physically acting out toward other residents and staff. Despite this, Resident #1’s record contained no documentation of enhanced supervision or other specific precautions related to being roomed with Resident #6. Staff interviews further described a pattern of concerning behavior by Resident #6 that was not fully assessed or incorporated into supervision plans for Resident #1. A hospice CNA reported witnessing Resident #6 verbally cursing at Resident #1 prior to the 01/30/2026 incident. Another CNA, who discovered Resident #1 with significant blood on the bed rail, in her mouth, and on the floor, recalled that Resident #6 had previously become upset when Resident #1 made noise, had threatened another resident who sat in her chair, was often verbally abusive to other residents, and was physically strong enough to move Resident #1, though she had not personally witnessed physical altercations between the two roommates. A RN reported she had requested a room change for Resident #1 after staff notified her of Resident #6’s violent behaviors and that she had multiple attempts to contact the Administrator about this request. The facility’s Risk Manager and Administrator stated that the initial belief was that Resident #1’s injuries were caused by contact with the bed rails and her own teeth, and the Administrator acknowledged that the investigation of the 01/30/2026 incident did not include Resident #6 as a possible source of the injuries, despite Resident #6’s documented aggressive history and the later acknowledgment that the puncture wounds on the outside of Resident #1’s cheek could not have been caused by her teeth.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Multiple Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to conduct thorough investigations into multiple abuse-related incidents involving three residents. For one resident, the facility documented facial gashes after an event that required transfer to a higher level of care, suturing of two right lower facial lacerations, and identification of an intracranial hemorrhage. Facility leadership concluded the resident caused the injuries by striking her teeth on the bed siderails and stated they had no reason to investigate the resident’s former roommate, despite that roommate’s documented history of aggressive behaviors and prior episodes of becoming upset with other residents. Hospice staff had emailed the Administrator requesting the resident be moved due to concerns about the roommate’s history of violent behaviors, and the resident was moved several days after returning from the hospital. In a separate incident, the facility received an allegation of verbal abuse in which a dietary staff member reported witnessing a CNA pull a resident by the arm of his wheelchair and yell at him. The facility’s investigation concluded the allegation was unsubstantiated, citing an inability to obtain adequate information from the reporting staff member after his resignation, even though leadership knew he resigned due to workplace harassment following his report, and no further investigation was conducted. In another case, a resident alleged that an RN became upset and threw a clipboard at him, resulting in a documented bruise on his hand when he blocked the clipboard. Facility leadership stated the allegation was unsubstantiated based on a reported retraction relayed by the ADON and a note that the resident had signed something with the police; the IDT added “confabulation – allegations of staff abuse” to the resident’s record. However, the resident later stated he only declined to press charges and did not retract the allegation. The police report documented that the resident declined to press battery charges and that the Risk Manager questioned why the incident was reported two days after it occurred, and the facility’s investigation consisted only of the Risk Manager’s written statement that the resident declined to press charges, with no additional investigative documentation provided.
Inaccurate and Non–Resident-Centered Use of Confabulation in Care Plans and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that resident assessments and care plans were documented accurately and in a resident-centered manner for four residents. During interviews, the MDS LPN identified the Director of Social Services (DSS) as the person responsible for entering behavior items on residents’ care plans, and the DSS stated that such directives could come from upper management, including the Administrator, Risk Manager, or DON. When surveyors questioned why a care plan entry for confabulation was added for one resident shortly after that resident made allegations of abuse, the team did not answer, and the DSS deferred responsibility to the Administrator. In a follow-up interview, the Administrator and DON stated that this resident had retracted his statement of abuse and that this was the reason confabulation was added to his care plan. Further review showed that the term confabulation was also used in the documentation of three additional residents without clear clinical rationale provided by facility leadership. For one resident, confabulation was referenced in the summary of an investigation into a grievance in which the resident reported not being changed for 30 minutes after activating the call light, with the investigation summary stating there was “some sort of confabulation.” For another resident, confabulation was used in four nurses’ notes documenting that the resident refused care. For a fourth resident, confabulation was used in a nurse’s note stating that the resident requested to be changed after it had already been done. When asked, the Administrator and DON did not provide further explanation for the frequent use of confabulation in these residents’ charts.
Inaccurate ADL and Behavior Documentation for Dependent, Non-Ambulatory Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves inaccurate and inconsistent medical record documentation for three residents, failing to reflect their actual functional status and behaviors. For one resident diagnosed with paraplegia, ADL documentation showed that he ambulated 150 feet independently or with varying levels of assistance and transferred from bed to chair independently or with supervision on multiple dates. However, observations on two consecutive days showed that he was bed bound with no active movement in his lower extremities, and both an LPN and a CNA confirmed he was paralyzed and unable to walk or transfer independently, stating that the documented entries would be impossible. For another resident, CNA flow sheets over a specified period documented independence with toilet and bed transfers, independence with lower body dressing, call light within reach, and fluids provided while at the hospital, while the resident’s care plan indicated total staff assistance. Observation showed this resident lying on her back with limited body movements, and a CNA later stated she required total care, had not been able to turn from side to side for several years, and required assistance with feeding. A third resident’s CNA flow sheets documented independence with toilet transfer and no behaviors, despite nursing notes on multiple dates describing the resident as upset, yelling, and screaming, and a care plan indicating a self-care deficit with total staff assistance for toileting, hygiene, and transfers, and that the resident was non-ambulatory. Observation showed this resident sliding down in bed and unable to reposition without assistance, and a CNA stated he required total care, while also explaining that behaviors were reported to the nurse and documented in a behavior flow sheet.
Unauthorized Use of Personal Cell Phones for Resident Images and Clinical Communication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents' personal privacy and the confidentiality of medical information when staff used personal cell phones to photograph and video residents for clinical communication with the facility’s Nurse Practitioner (NP). Nursing documentation showed that one resident was observed sliding on the floor while yelling and screaming with abdominal pain, and staff contacted the NP for clinical guidance. The NP’s written statement confirmed that staff provided a video of this resident and requested guidance based on the behaviors shown in the recording. During interviews, a RN admitted to taking a video of the resident on her personal cell phone to send to the NP and acknowledged knowing that personal devices were technically not permitted, though she believed the restriction related to posting on social media. The RN also reported that staff take photographs of residents’ skin concerns to send to the NP. The Wound Care Nurse stated that she routinely uses her personal cell phone to take and store pictures of residents’ wounds and sends them via text message to the NP for assessment and treatment recommendations, and both staff members were unaware of any signed consents from residents for this form of communication. The Administrator did not oppose the practice if done for medical purposes but acknowledged she could not ensure confidentiality once images were on personal devices. Review of the facility’s policy on videotaping, photographing, and imaging of residents showed requirements for explicit written consent, prohibition of unauthorized transmission of images, and treatment of photographs as health care records, but there was no evidence of consent, authorization, or secure, encrypted transmission for the use of staff personal devices as practiced.
Failure to Timely Report Suspected Abuse/Injury of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely report an alleged incident of abuse/neglect within the required 2-hour timeframe. An incident report filed on 02/03/2026 at 4:00 PM documented an event as occurring on 02/03/2026, but further review showed the incident actually occurred on 01/30/2026. The event involved Resident #1, described as a vulnerable adult with cognitive impairment, who was found with her face pressed against the side rails of her bed on 01/30/2026, sustaining puncture wounds to the outside of her cheek that required sutures and a transfer to a local hospital. Although the report indicated the Administrator was notified on 02/03/2026, the Administrator was already aware of the incident that occurred on 01/30/2026. The incident was not reported to the appropriate authorities until after an Adult Protective Services investigator arrived at the facility on 02/03/2026 at 4:00 PM to investigate the allegation. During an interview on 02/09/2026, the facility Risk Manager stated she decided to report the incident after the APS investigator entered the facility and confirmed that her expectation is that any suspected abuse observed by staff must be reported immediately so she can initiate an investigation. She also stated that any injury of unknown origin must be reported within two hours, followed by a five-day report with investigation findings. The facility’s written policy on Abuse, Exploitation or Misappropriation-Reporting and Investigating, last revised 04/2021, requires that suspected abuse, neglect, or injury of unknown source be reported immediately to the administrator and other officials, defining “immediately” as within two hours for allegations involving abuse or resulting in serious bodily injury. The Risk Manager did not provide an explanation for the delay in reporting this incident, resulting in noncompliance with the facility’s policy and regulatory reporting timeframes.
Failure to Protect Abuse Reporter From Retaliation and Harassment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its abuse-prevention and anti-retaliation policies to protect an employee who reported alleged abuse of a resident. A dietary aide (Staff Q) reported witnessing a staff member pull Resident #4 by the wheelchair arm and tell the resident, “get your ugly *** out here,” and he immediately reported this to a Unit Manager, who then notified the Risk Manager. After making this report, Staff Q stated that staff spoke loudly about him in a threatening manner, made retaliatory remarks, refused to sign meal-tray forms, and used aggressive tones and profanity toward him. He reported ongoing harassment from both kitchen and nursing staff, but had difficulty identifying those involved because staff were not wearing name badges. Staff Q ultimately resigned by phone, stating he feared for his safety and reiterating that he could not positively identify all involved staff due to the lack of visible name badges. Multiple interviews with facility leadership and staff showed that no investigation into the reported harassment and retaliation was conducted, despite the facility’s written policy stating that the administrator ensures the person reporting suspected violations is protected from retaliation or reprisal. The Dietary Manager reported that when Staff Q told her he was resigning due to harassment after reporting abuse, she did not investigate the harassment herself but notified the Administrator and Risk Manager. The 3rd Floor Unit Manager acknowledged hearing that Staff Q resigned due to harassment but stated staff-to-staff harassment was outside her scope and should be handled by HR. The Risk Manager stated she attempted to contact Staff Q twice, was unable to reach him, and then unsubstantiated the abuse allegation without further investigation. The Administrator confirmed awareness that Staff Q reported being harassed but acknowledged that no investigation into the harassment occurred. A former dietary staff member (Staff R) also reported experiencing harassment from nursing and kitchen staff during his employment and stated he had reported it to HR, who told him to speak with his supervisor, who was allegedly involved in the harassment. The HR Director recalled a harassment report from Staff R, acknowledged uncertainty about the timeline, and admitted staff were “bad about wearing badges,” despite repeatedly instructing them to wear them.
Failure to Update Care Plan with Enhanced Monitoring After Aggressive Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a complete and comprehensive care plan for a resident with a history of physical aggression, including behaviors such as striking out, hitting, kicking, throwing objects, spitting at staff, and refusing care. On the morning of 5/27/25, staff responded to an incident where the resident was observed hitting a nurse in the dining room. Following the incident, the resident was seen by a Psychiatric APRN, and staff implemented 15-minute checks for the next 48 hours as a monitoring intervention. However, review of the resident's electronic medical record revealed that while the care plan for physical aggression was revised on the same day as the incident, no new interventions were documented, and the enhanced rounding of 15-minute checks was not added to the care plan. Additionally, there was no physician order for the enhanced rounding. Interviews with the DON, social worker, and MDS/care plan nurse confirmed that the care plan update for enhanced rounding was missed, and the intervention was not included in the resident's care plan.
Failure to Assess Resident's Capability for Self-Administration of Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the interdisciplinary team (IDT) assessed and determined if a resident was capable of self-administering medications before allowing a resident to do so. This deficiency was identified during an observation of a resident who was performing his own tracheostomy care and had an unsecured tube of mupirocin ointment on the sink. The resident had been declining tracheostomy care from staff and providing his own care on multiple occasions without an assessment to determine his capability to self-administer medications and treatments. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the facility has a process to assess residents before allowing them to self-administer medications, but this process was not followed for the resident in question. The facility's policy requires that the IDT assess each resident's cognitive abilities to determine if self-administration is safe and appropriate, and this should be documented in the medical record and care plan. However, no such assessment or documentation was found for the resident, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Provide Adequate Nail Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate nail care to a resident who was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL). During an observation, the Director of Nursing (DON) noted that the resident's fingernails on the right hand were excessively long, with the 5th digit's nail measuring 1.5 cm past the nail bed. The resident's right hand was contracted, making it difficult to measure the 4th digit's nail, which was also noted to be long. The DON confirmed that the nail length was unacceptable given the resident's condition. A review of the resident's records showed that the resident had a functional limitation in the range of motion on one side of the upper extremity and required supervision or assistance for personal hygiene. The care plan indicated the resident was dependent on staff for various personal care tasks, including nail care. However, there was no documentation of nail care being performed or any refusal of such care by the resident. The facility's policy on nail care, revised in February 2018, emphasized the importance of regular cleaning and trimming to prevent infections, but there was no record of compliance with this policy for the resident in question.
Failure to Document and Order Treatment for Skin Tear
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards and facility policy for a resident with a non-pressure related skin condition. Observations revealed that the resident had an undated dressing on the left lower arm over several days. The wound care nurse confirmed that the dressing was not dated and that there was no order for the dressing or documentation of the skin tear in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR). The wound was new to the wound care nurse that week, and no order had been obtained for the treatment. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the absence of a documented order in the EMR for the resident's left lower arm/wrist area. The DON stated that it is expected for the nurse to notify the provider of any new skin issues, obtain an order for treatment, and document it in the EMR. Additionally, the resident's representative should be notified. The facility's policy on skin tears and minor breaks in the skin requires obtaining a physician's order, documenting physician notification, and reviewing the resident's care plan and current orders.
Failure to Monitor Magnesium Levels
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to appropriately monitor the magnesium levels for a resident who was receiving Magnesium Oxide 400 mg by mouth four times a day since September 15, 2023. The physician had ordered a magnesium level to be checked every six months along with other routine labs, as per the order dated July 6, 2023. However, a review of the resident's record revealed that there was no monitoring of the magnesium level or any documented refusal of the test since the order date. An interview with the Director of Nursing confirmed that the magnesium level was not completed, and there were no documented attempts or refusals in the resident's record. The facility's policy, Lab and Diagnostic Test Results-Clinical Protocol, revised in November 2018, states that the physician will identify and order diagnostic and lab testing based on the resident's needs, and the staff will process test requisitions and arrange for tests. Despite this policy, the necessary monitoring was not conducted, leading to a deficiency in the resident's care.
Improper Disposal of Garbage and Refuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly dispose of garbage and refuse, as observed during an inspection of the kitchen and outside garbage collection bins. On the initial tour, trash was found around the garbage compactor, and a cardboard box trash bin was on the ground with a visible hole in the forklift port, allowing cardboard boxes to be seen through it. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the issues, indicating plans to notify the Maintenance Manager about the hole and to clean up the area. A follow-up observation confirmed the ongoing issues, with the Administrator noting the hole in the cardboard box bin and trash scattered on the ground around the bins. The facility's policy, dated October 2019, requires that garbage and refuse be collected and disposed of safely and efficiently, with specific responsibilities assigned to the Dining Services Director and the Director of Maintenance to maintain cleanliness and proper disposal practices.
Failure to Implement Transmission-Based Precautions for ESBL UTI
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP) for a resident diagnosed with an extended-spectrum B-lactamase (ESBL) urinary tract infection (UTI). On September 10, 2024, the room of Resident #8 was observed without TBP signage or any isolation setup, including personal protective equipment (PPE). This was confirmed by the unit manager, Staff K, who acknowledged that residents with ESBL UTI should be on contact precautions, which include TBP signage and isolation setup by the door. The infection preventionist (IP) confirmed that an order for antibiotics was placed on September 6, 2024, and that the resident should have been placed on contact isolation at that time. Further interviews revealed a lack of a clear process for monitoring new infections when the IP is not on site. Staff K was unaware of any such process, and the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the house supervisor reviews orders on weekends for residents being readmitted from the hospital. However, there was no indication that this process was followed for Resident #8. The facility's policy on Isolation-Initiating Transmission Based Precautions, revised in August 2019, states that such precautions should be initiated when a resident has a laboratory-confirmed infection and is at risk of transmitting it to others, which was not adhered to in this case.
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 62 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 Pensacola
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arabella Health & Wellness Of Pensacola | 1.5 mi | — | 12 | 3 |
| Rosewood Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center | 2.1 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Havens At Pensacola, The | 3.9 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Pensacola Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 4.4 mi | — | 20 | 0 |
| Bayside Health And Rehabilitation Center | 5.8 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Coral Bay At Pensacola, Llc.
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.