Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
A standard survey is most likely before 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 Life Care Center Of Melbourne during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A facility failed to evaluate a resident for self-administration of medications, obtain a physician's order, and securely store medications. The resident, who was moderately cognitively impaired, self-administered eye drops without proper assessment or documentation. Staff acknowledged the oversight, and a subsequent assessment determined the resident required assistance and could not self-administer medications.
The facility failed to refer residents with newly evident mental disorders for Level II PASARR evaluations. Four residents with significant mental health diagnoses, including schizophrenia, depression, and psychotic disorders, did not receive the required screenings. The DON acknowledged the oversight and confirmed the need for new PASARR Level I Screens.
The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for nutrition within the required timeframe for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including diabetes and dementia. Despite being on a mechanically altered diet and at risk of malnutrition, no baseline or comprehensive care plan was found in the resident's records. Both the LPN and DON acknowledged the oversight.
The facility failed to accurately diagnose a resident for the use of anti-psychotic medication. Despite the resident's history of dementia, anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder, the care plan included a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, which was not supported by the psychiatrist's notes. This discrepancy led to the inappropriate use of high-risk medications.
A facility failed to document the duration for a PRN anti-anxiety medication for a resident, leading to the administration of Lorazepam beyond the 14-day limit without proper documentation. The resident received 17 doses of Lorazepam after the 14-day duration had passed, without a documented rationale from the physician for the extended use.
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including glaucoma, was observed self-administering prescribed eye drops without a physician's order for self-administration. Nursing staff documented the administration as being done by clinicians, despite the resident self-administering the medication. The facility failed to ensure complete and accurate medical records, leading to a deficiency.
Failure to Evaluate and Authorize Self-Administration of Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an evaluation for self-administration of medication was completed, failed to obtain a physician's order for self-administration of medications, and failed to ensure medications were stored securely at the resident's bedside. A resident, who was moderately cognitively impaired, was observed with two vials of eye drops on her tray table, which she self-administered without a physician's order or proper assessment. The resident's medical records did not indicate any evaluation or approval for self-administration of medications, and the medications were not stored in a locked drawer as required by facility policy. Licensed Practical Nurses and the Unit Manager acknowledged the lack of proper documentation and assessment for the resident's self-administration of medications. The Director of Nursing confirmed that residents must have an evaluation and a physician's order to self-administer medications. A subsequent assessment indicated that the resident required assistance to correctly read labels and administer eye drops, and it was determined that the resident may not self-administer medications. The facility's policy mandates that residents who request to self-administer medications must be assessed by the interdisciplinary team to ensure safety, and medications must be securely stored to prevent access by confused residents.
Failure to Conduct PASARR Evaluations for Residents with Mental Disorders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to refer residents with newly evident mental disorders for Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) evaluations. This deficiency was identified for four residents (#24, #47, #59, and #93) out of a total sample of 41 residents. The failure to conduct the necessary PASARR evaluations was evident through interviews and record reviews, which revealed that the residents had significant mental health diagnoses that were not appropriately addressed through the required screening process. Resident #24 was admitted with diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder. Despite these diagnoses and evident behavioral issues, such as frequent agitation and refusal of care, the facility did not complete a new PASARR Level I Screen for the newly identified mental illness diagnoses. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the oversight and confirmed that a new PASARR Level I Screen was needed but not performed. Resident #93 had a history of cerebral infarction, delusional disorder, and depression. The initial PASARR Level I Screen did not identify any mental illness, but subsequent assessments revealed moderate cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of psychotic disorder. Despite these findings, no new PASARR Level I Screen was completed. The DON confirmed the initial screening was incorrect and acknowledged the need for a new PASARR Level I Screen. Similar deficiencies were found for residents #59 and #47, who had significant mental health diagnoses that were not followed up with the required PASARR evaluations, as confirmed by the DON and the facility's PASARR policy.
Failure to Develop Baseline Care Plan for Nutrition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for nutrition within the required timeframe for a resident admitted with diagnoses including diabetes type II, cognitive communication deficit, dementia, and dysphagia. The resident was on a mechanically altered diet and was observed consuming only 20 to 25% of her meal. On another occasion, the resident was found with her eyes closed and not eating, despite having her lunch tray set up in front of her. A Mini Nutritional Assessment indicated the resident was at risk of malnutrition, yet no baseline or comprehensive care plan for nutrition was found in the resident's clinical records. The Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager and the Director of Nursing both acknowledged that a baseline care plan should have been developed based on the Mini Nutritional Assessment results. The facility's policy required that a baseline care plan be developed within 48 hours of admission, including dietary orders. However, the review of the resident's clinical records confirmed that neither a baseline nor a comprehensive care plan for nutrition was created, despite the resident being admitted on a mechanical soft diet and being identified as at risk for malnutrition.
Inaccurate Diagnosis for Anti-Psychotic Medication Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to identify an accurate diagnosis for the use of anti-psychotic medication for one resident. The resident, a female with a history of dementia, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizoaffective disorder, was admitted and readmitted from an acute care hospital. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired and did not show indicators of psychosis or behavioral symptoms. Despite this, the resident was prescribed high-risk anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and hypnotic medications. The comprehensive care plan included a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, which was not supported by the psychiatrist's notes or assessments, leading to a discrepancy in the resident's medical record and care plan. The Director of Nursing (DON) explained that behavioral health meetings were conducted monthly to discuss residents' psychiatric plans of care, including medication dose reductions and appropriate diagnoses. However, the DON admitted that the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder was used based on hospital records and was not revised to reflect the facility's psychiatrist's assessments. The MDS Lead Coordinator confirmed that the psychiatric diagnoses were auto-populated from the electronic medical record and should be verified with the most recent physician's notes. Upon review, it was found that the psychiatrist's notes did not include a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, contradicting the MDS and care plan. Interviews with the facility's psychiatrist revealed that he rarely used the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and confirmed that the resident was treated for bipolar disorder and grief. The facility's standards and guidelines emphasized the importance of accurate and timely comprehensive care plans, which should be reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team. The failure to accurately diagnose and document the resident's condition led to the inappropriate use of anti-psychotic medication, highlighting a significant deficiency in the facility's care planning and assessment processes.
Failure to Document Duration for PRN Anti-Anxiety Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to indicate the duration of as-needed (PRN) anti-anxiety/anxiolytic medications for a resident, leading to the administration of Lorazepam beyond the 14-day limit without proper documentation. The resident, who had diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, transient ischemic attack, depression, psychotic disorder, delusional disorder, anxiety disorder, and unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbance, was admitted and readmitted to the facility. The resident's medical record showed an active PRN order for Lorazepam for anxiety, which was administered 24 times between 11/30/23 and 5/07/24, with 17 doses given after the 14-day limit had passed without a documented rationale from the physician for the extended use. Interviews with the RN and the DON confirmed that the PRN Lorazepam order should have been limited to 14 days unless a new order with a rationale was provided by the physician. The facility's Psychotropic Medication Management Policy also required PRN psychotropic medications to be limited to 14 days unless a longer timeframe was deemed appropriate by the attending physician and documented in the resident's medical record. The failure to adhere to this policy resulted in the continued administration of Lorazepam without proper documentation and rationale for its extended use.
Failure to Ensure Accurate Documentation of Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure documentation in the medical record was complete and accurate according to accepted professional standards and practices regarding the self-administration of medications for one resident. The resident, an elderly female with multiple diagnoses including glaucoma, was observed self-administering her prescribed eye drops without a physician's order for self-administration. The resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that the medications were administered by clinicians, despite the resident self-administering the eye drops for an unknown period. Interviews with nursing staff revealed that the resident's family had requested she self-administer the eye drops, but this request was not documented, and the nurses continued to sign off on the MAR as if they had administered the medication themselves. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and Registered Nurse (RN) involved acknowledged that the resident self-administered the eye drops while they documented the administration as being done by staff. The Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) was unaware of the resident's self-administration and confirmed that there was no documentation or order for supervised or unsupervised self-administration. The expectation was for nurses to ensure documentation was complete and accurate, which was not met in this case, leading to a deficiency in maintaining proper medical records and safeguarding resident-identifiable information.
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 45 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 2 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 Melbourne
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melbourne Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center | 0.2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Avante At Melbourne Inc | 0.7 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Melbourne Terrace Rehabilitation Center | 2.3 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| West Melbourne Health & Rehabilitation Center | 2.7 mi | — | 14 | 0 |
| Atlantic Shores Nursing And Rehab Center | 3.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Life Care Center Of Melbourne.
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.