Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around November 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 Oakwood Care Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to maintain adequate chlorine levels in their dishwasher, with readings consistently below the required 50 ppm, affecting the sanitization of dishes for 60 residents. Despite the installation of a new dishwasher, the kitchen staff used incorrect test strips, and the Sales Technician suggested that high water temperatures might be burning off the sanitizer. The issue persisted despite the dishwasher operating within the acceptable temperature range.
A facility failed to ensure consistent documentation of a resident's code status, resulting in discrepancies between the IPOST, EHR, and Care Plan. The Care Plan and EHR indicated Full Code, while the IPOST, signed by the resident and physician, indicated DNR. Staff interviews revealed reliance on the EHR for code status, and the facility policy requiring consistency was not followed.
A facility failed to notify the state ombudsman of a resident's transfer to the hospital, as required. The resident was taken to the ED by ambulance and admitted to the hospital. The facility's Ombudsman report lacked documentation of this transfer, and the administrator confirmed the omission.
The facility inaccurately documented MDS assessments for two residents. One resident's MDS noted significant weight loss, but weights were found to be incorrect due to issues with the weight stand. Another resident's MDS incorrectly recorded a discharge to a hospital instead of home. Staff interviews confirmed these errors.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple health conditions experienced a significant weight loss, which the facility failed to assess and follow up on. Despite the facility's policy, the weight loss was not communicated to the physician or family, and staff were unaware of the issue. Observations showed the resident had a poor appetite, and there was inconsistency in meal consumption and weight documentation.
An LPN in a facility failed to follow proper infection control protocols during blood sugar checks and insulin administration for two residents with diabetes. The LPN did not clean the blood sugar meter between uses, neglected to use a barrier under supplies, and did not perform hand hygiene between residents. Additionally, gloves were not worn during insulin administration, and hand hygiene was compromised by using a washcloth to dry hands. These actions violated the manufacturer's guidelines and CDC infection control requirements.
Inadequate Chlorine Levels in Dishwasher
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the chlorine levels in their dishwasher were adequate for sanitizing dishes, affecting the safety and hygiene of food service for 60 residents. On multiple occasions, the dishwasher's chlorine levels were tested and found to be below the required 50 parts per million (ppm), with readings between 25 ppm and 50 ppm. The kitchen staff and the Housekeeping/Laundry Supervisor acknowledged the low chlorine levels, and the facility's Dietitian noted that a new dishwasher had been installed recently, which might have contributed to the issue. The Sales Technician for the dishwasher confirmed that the chlorine levels should be at least 50 ppm and suggested that the water temperature might be too high, potentially burning off the sanitizer. The facility's corporate dietitian later confirmed that the kitchen staff had been using the wrong test strips, although the Sales Technician indicated that the type of strip used should not affect the readings. The dishwasher's temperature was observed to be 134 degrees Fahrenheit, within the acceptable range for a low-temperature dish machine, but the chlorine levels remained insufficient. The Service Manual for the dishwasher specified that the sanitizer should be a 6% solution of sodium hypochlorite, with free chlorine in the final rinse at 50 ppm or more, highlighting the facility's failure to meet these standards.
Inconsistent Code Status Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure consistency in the code status documentation for a resident, leading to a discrepancy between the Iowa Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (IPOST), the electronic health record (EHR), and the Care Plan. The Care Plan indicated the resident's code status as Full Code, while the IPOST, signed by both the resident and physician, indicated a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status. However, the EHR documented the resident's code status as Full Code. Interviews with staff revealed that they relied on the EHR for code status information, and there was a lack of awareness that the EHR should have been updated to reflect the IPOST. The facility's policy required that the code status in the IPOST should match the designation in the EHR, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Notify Ombudsman of Resident Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the state ombudsman regarding the transfer of a resident to the hospital, which constitutes a deficiency in the required notification process. Specifically, the clinical record review and staff interview revealed that the facility did not document the transfer of a resident to the hospital in their Ombudsman report for April 2024. The resident was taken to the emergency department by ambulance and admitted to the hospital, as noted in the emergency care physician notes. The resident was readmitted to the facility from the hospital a few days later. The facility's administrator confirmed that the resident should have been included in the Ombudsman report, indicating a lapse in the notification process.
Inaccurate MDS Documentation for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately document and submit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for two residents, leading to deficiencies in the assessment process. For one resident, the MDS recorded a Brief Interview for Mental State (BIMS) score indicating moderate cognitive impairment and noted significant weight loss. However, a review of the resident's weights showed discrepancies, with an incorrect weight being struck out and no documentation supporting the reported weight loss. The dietician admitted to recording the weight loss on the MDS based on available weights but later acknowledged the weights were inaccurate and should have been modified. The facility administrator confirmed issues with the weight stand during that period, which contributed to the inaccurate weights. For another resident, the MDS inaccurately documented the resident's discharge to a short-term general hospital, while progress notes indicated the resident was discharged home with family. The MDS coordinator acknowledged the coding error, stating the MDS should have reflected the resident's discharge to home. These inaccuracies in the MDS assessments were identified through clinical record reviews and staff interviews, highlighting a failure to ensure the assessments accurately reflected the residents' statuses as instructed by the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual.
Failure to Address Significant Weight Loss in Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately assess and follow up on a significant weight loss for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple health conditions, including diabetes mellitus and heart disease. The resident experienced a 6.03% weight loss over a 30-day period, which was not addressed by the facility staff. Despite the facility's policy requiring immediate notification of significant weight changes to the physician and family, this did not occur for the resident in question. Observations and interviews revealed that the resident was able to feed himself but had a poor appetite, consuming only small portions of meals. Staff interviews indicated a lack of awareness regarding the resident's significant weight loss, and there was inconsistency in the documentation of meal consumption and weight records. The facility's weight monitoring policy was not followed, as the resident's weight loss was not communicated to the necessary parties, and there was no documentation of any assessment or intervention in the medical records. The facility's failure to adhere to its weight monitoring policy and lack of communication with the physician and family about the resident's weight loss contributed to the deficiency. The resident's spouse was also not informed of the weight fluctuation, and the care plan nurse and other staff members were unaware of the significant weight change, indicating a breakdown in communication and monitoring processes within the facility.
Inadequate Infection Control During Blood Sugar Checks and Insulin Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to proper infection prevention and control protocols during blood sugar checks and insulin administration for two residents. Staff B, an LPN, was observed performing blood sugar checks on Resident #21 without cleaning the blood sugar meter between uses, failing to use a barrier under supplies, and not wearing gloves during insulin administration. Additionally, Staff B did not perform hand hygiene after completing care for Resident #21 and before proceeding to the next resident. Resident #53, who also has diabetes and severe cognitive impairment, was similarly affected by the lack of proper infection control practices. Staff B was observed using the same blood sugar meter without cleaning it between residents and failed to use a barrier under the supplies. After administering medications, Staff B washed his hands but used a washcloth to dry them due to the absence of paper towels, which compromised hand hygiene. The LPN continued to handle medical equipment and administer insulin without proper sanitation or hand hygiene. The facility's failure to follow the manufacturer's guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting the blood sugar meter and the CDC's infection control requirements contributed to the deficiency. The Assure Prism Manual and interviews with staff confirmed that the blood sugar meter should be cleaned and disinfected between each resident, and gloves should be worn during insulin administration. However, these protocols were not followed, leading to potential risks of cross-contamination and infection transmission.
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 39 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 Clear Lake
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mercyone North Iowa Medical Services | 6.7 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| I O O F Home And Community Therapy Center | 8.9 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
| Good Shepherd Health Center | 10 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
| Heritage Care And Rehabilitation Center | 10.6 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Concord Care Center | 11.5 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Oakwood Care Center.
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.