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 Oakhill Healthcare during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to address and document grievances from two residents, who reported unresolved issues with room conditions and staff interactions. The grievance policy was not followed, as forms were not completed, and there was no documentation of investigations or resolutions. Additionally, grievance forms were not accessible to residents, preventing anonymous submissions.
The facility failed to complete and accurately assess the cognitive patterns and pain evaluation sections of the MDS for several residents. Despite indications that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and pain assessments should be conducted, these sections were left incomplete, affecting residents with various diagnoses such as dementia and spinal stenosis. Staff interviews confirmed the oversight in completing these assessments.
The facility failed to maintain sufficient staffing levels on weekends, as indicated by a one-star staffing rating and excessively low weekend staffing data. Interviews with residents and staff revealed delays in call light responses and frequent call-outs, particularly on weekends. The facility's staffing ratios were not consistently met, with discrepancies between the Healthcare Facility Assessment and actual staffing practices, impacting resident care.
The facility failed to follow food safety and sanitation standards, risking foodborne illness among residents. A dietary aide was observed handling ready-to-eat food without proper hand hygiene, using the same gloves for multiple tasks. Additionally, food products in nourishment kitchenettes were not properly labeled or dated, contrary to facility policy. Interviews confirmed non-compliance with established guidelines.
The facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for several residents, leading to discrepancies between residents' wishes and their EMR. Two residents had mismatched Physician's orders and MOLST forms, while another lacked a current court-approved treatment plan for antipsychotic medications. Additionally, there was a significant gap in documented physician visits for a resident, and a Level 2 PASARR was missing from a resident's medical record.
The facility failed to explain binding arbitration agreements to two residents with cognitive impairments, resulting in their signing without understanding. The Administrator was unaware of the signed agreements, and nursing staff did not provide detailed explanations during the admission process. The deficiency highlights a lack of proper procedure and communication regarding arbitration agreements.
The facility's QAPI Committee failed to include required members at meetings, with the Medical Director missing the last two quarterly meetings and the lab and pharmacy providers absent from all four meetings in 2024. Despite being invited, these members did not attend, and the Administrator was unaware of the requirement for their quarterly attendance.
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as staff did not use appropriate PPE for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) with two residents diagnosed with MRSA. Additionally, the facility lacked a specific water management plan to address Legionella risk, as confirmed by the Director of Maintenance and the Administrator.
The facility failed to provide two residents with summaries of their baseline care plans. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and an activated healthcare proxy was not informed about their care goals or provided a care plan summary. Another resident, who was alert and oriented, was not involved in a meeting to discuss their treatment plan or offered a care plan summary. Staff interviews confirmed that the required process for baseline care plans was not followed.
A facility failed to update a resident's care plan to reflect the indefinite activation of their Health Care Proxy (HCP). The resident, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory failure, had their HCP activated for 30 days, but the care plan was not revised despite changes in medical orders and hospice admission. The physician admitted forgetting to update the care plan, and staff confirmed it should have reflected the extended HCP activation.
The facility failed to meet professional standards of care for three residents. An RN did not document a death pronouncement, a resident with a pressure injury did not receive timely wound care adjustments, and another resident was transferred to the hospital without a physician's order. These deficiencies highlight lapses in documentation and adherence to care protocols.
A resident was observed smoking unsupervised in the courtyard without protective equipment, contrary to the facility's smoking policy. The resident's smoking evaluations were incomplete, and their care plan lacked individualized interventions. Despite receiving a nicotine patch for smoking cessation, the resident continued to smoke occasionally with family, highlighting inconsistencies in the facility's implementation of smoking policies.
A facility failed to maintain a resident's oxygen concentrator in a sanitary manner, as it was observed running without a filter on multiple occasions. The resident, who required continuous oxygen therapy due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory failure, had physician's orders for specific oxygen settings and tubing changes. Staff confirmed the absence of the filter, noting the concentrator model was unfamiliar to the facility.
The facility failed to create individualized, trauma-informed care plans for two residents with a history of trauma. Despite ongoing psychological services, specific triggers were not identified, and care plans were not individualized. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness regarding the residents' trauma histories and triggers, indicating a failure to adhere to the facility's trauma-informed care policy.
A resident with multiple diagnoses was not seen by a physician at the required intervals, resulting in a 210-day gap between visits. The facility's policy and regulatory standards were not followed, as confirmed by interviews with the physician and DON.
The facility failed to document and act on monthly medication regimen reviews (MRR) for two residents. MRRs were not included in the medical records, and recommendations were not acted upon timely. The DON kept MRRs in a binder, contrary to policy requiring documentation in the active record.
The facility failed to properly store controlled substances and left medications unsecured. A controlled substance storage box in a refrigerator was not permanently affixed, allowing removal of the shelf with the box attached. Additionally, a nurse left medications unattended on a cart without supervision, violating facility policy.
Failure to Address and Document Resident Grievances
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents had the right to voice grievances and have those grievances addressed and resolved promptly. Two residents, who were cognitively intact, reported that their grievances were not documented or resolved. One resident expressed concerns about a malfunctioning air conditioner in their room, which was not addressed despite being reported to the Administrator. Another resident reported poor customer service from nurse aides, but no follow-up or resolution was provided. The facility's grievance policy, revised in December 2018, was not followed. The policy requires that grievances be documented and addressed by the grievance official, typically the Administrator or a designee. However, the facility did not complete grievance forms for the residents' concerns, and there was no documentation of investigations or resolutions. Staff interviews revealed that the grievance process was not consistently followed, and the Administrator acknowledged the lack of documentation and resolution. Additionally, the facility did not provide residents with access to grievance forms, preventing them from submitting grievances anonymously. During a facility tour, surveyors found that grievance forms were not available in designated areas, and staff were unaware of their locations. Residents reported not knowing where to find grievance forms and expressed concerns about the facility's lack of follow-up on grievances. The Administrator admitted that the facility did not have a process for residents to submit grievances anonymously, contrary to the facility's policy.
Incomplete MDS Assessments for Cognitive and Pain Evaluation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the completion and accuracy of Section C (Cognitive Patterns) of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for seven current residents and one discharged resident. These residents, who had various diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure, diabetes mellitus, dementia, quadriplegia, and spinal stenosis, were not properly assessed for their cognitive status. The MDS assessments indicated that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be conducted, but questions C 0200 through C 0400 were not assessed, resulting in no BIMS score to determine the residents' level of cognition. This oversight was identified during a review of the MDS assessments dated between September and October 2024. Additionally, the facility failed to complete the pain assessment section (Section J) for a discharged resident with spinal stenosis. The MDS assessment indicated that a pain assessment interview should be conducted, but questions J 0300 through J 0600 were left blank, leaving the section incomplete. Interviews with the social worker, MDS nurse, and corporate nurse confirmed that the MDS assessments were incomplete and inaccurate, as Section C was either dashed or marked as not assessed, and the pain assessment was not completed. The staff acknowledged that these sections should have been completed as part of the residents' evaluations.
Insufficient Weekend Staffing in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing levels to meet the needs of residents, particularly on weekends, as evidenced by the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) report submitted to CMS for Fiscal Year Quarter 3, 2024. The report highlighted excessively low weekend staffing, triggering a one-star staffing rating. The facility's Healthcare Facility Assessment (FA) indicated a need for 18-21 nurse aides daily based on shift and acuity, but the actual staffing levels on several weekends fell below this requirement. Specific dates were identified where the number of nurse aides was less than the minimum required, impacting the facility's ability to provide timely care. Interviews with residents revealed that call lights were not answered promptly, with delays averaging 45 minutes, indicating insufficient staffing to meet resident needs. Staff interviews corroborated these findings, with nurses reporting frequent call-outs and reliance on agency staff, particularly on weekends. The Scheduling Coordinator acknowledged the issue of call-outs and the use of multiple staffing agencies to cover shifts, yet the facility still struggled to maintain adequate staffing levels. The Director of Nursing (DON) and Consulting Staff confirmed that the facility's staffing ratios were not consistently met, with discrepancies between the FA and actual staffing practices. The DON noted that the A Wing required a higher staffing ratio due to increased acuity, but the facility's staffing did not align with these needs. The lack of a documented staffing policy or minimum standard for hours per patient day (HPPD) further contributed to the deficiency, as the facility relied on census-based staffing without clear guidelines to ensure resident health and safety.
Food Safety and Sanitation Deficiencies in Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards of food safety and sanitation, which could potentially lead to foodborne illness among residents. During a lunch meal service, a dietary aide, referred to as [NAME] #1, was observed handling ready-to-eat food without proper hand hygiene. The aide was seen using the same pair of gloves for multiple tasks, including touching food items, handling a dish rag, and touching her face, without changing gloves or washing hands. This practice was contrary to the guidelines outlined in the 2022 Food Code by the FDA, which mandates that food employees must not contact exposed, ready-to-eat food with their bare hands and should use suitable utensils or single-use gloves, changing them when necessary. Additionally, the facility failed to properly label and date food products in two of the three nourishment kitchenettes. Observations revealed that various food items, including drinks and perishable goods, were stored without resident identification or use-by dates. This included items such as protein drinks, lemon water, and Diet Coke bottles, among others. The facility's policy requires that perishable food brought into the facility must be labeled with the resident's name and use-by date, and nursing staff are responsible for discarding expired items. Interviews with the Food Service Director (FSD) and nursing staff confirmed that the facility's practices did not align with their policies. The FSD acknowledged that gloves should be changed when leaving and returning to the service line and that food products in the kitchenettes should be checked daily for expiration and proper labeling. Despite these policies, the surveyor's observations indicated a lack of compliance, which could compromise the safety and well-being of the residents.
Deficiencies in Medical Record Accuracy and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for several residents, leading to discrepancies between the residents' wishes and the documentation in their Electronic Medical Records (EMR). For two residents, the Physician's orders in the EMR did not match the Massachusetts Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) forms, which indicated different instructions regarding resuscitation, intubation, and hospital transfer. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the MOLST and physician's orders should match, but they did not in these cases. Another resident's medical record did not contain a current court-approved treatment plan for the administration of antipsychotic medications, known as a [NAME] Treatment Plan. Although the facility's lawyer eventually provided the current plan, it was not initially present in the resident's medical record, which the Director of Nursing confirmed should have been complete and accurate. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure timely documentation of physician visits for a resident, with a significant gap between documented visits. Furthermore, a resident's Level 2 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was not available in the medical record as required, despite being completed and available in the PASARR portal. The Social Worker confirmed that the PASARR should have been part of the medical record to ensure completeness.
Failure to Explain Arbitration Agreements to Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly explain binding arbitration agreements to residents or their responsible parties, resulting in two residents signing these agreements without full understanding. The Administrator, who was responsible for overseeing the arbitration agreement process, was unaware that any residents had signed such agreements. Upon review, it was found that two residents, both with cognitive impairments, had signed arbitration agreements without the agreements being fully explained to them or their healthcare proxies (HCPs). Resident #60, who was admitted with severe cognitive impairment, had an arbitration agreement signed by their HCP. The HCP was not informed about the nature of the arbitration agreement and signed it as part of a stack of documents without any explanation. Similarly, Resident #92, with moderately impaired cognition, signed their own arbitration agreement without understanding its implications. Both residents and their representatives were not made aware of their rights to refuse or rescind the agreement within 30 days. Interviews with nursing staff revealed that they were not adequately informed about the arbitration agreements and did not explain them to residents or their representatives. The nurses admitted to having residents sign the agreements as part of the admission process without providing detailed explanations. The Administrator acknowledged the deficiency in the process and the lack of a policy or procedure for completing arbitration forms, indicating a need for improvement in how these agreements are handled and communicated to residents and their families.
QAPI Committee Attendance Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee with the required members attending the meetings. Specifically, the Medical Director did not attend the last two quarterly QAPI meetings, and the laboratory and pharmacy providers did not attend any of the four quarterly meetings throughout the year 2024. The facility's QAPI Program Resource Guide, revised in June 2019, indicated that the QAPI plans should be comprehensive and include all departments and services offered by the facility, with leadership accountable for engaging all members. The facility's QAPI calendar, also revised in June 2019, listed the expected attendees for the quarterly meetings, including the Medical Director, Administrator, Director of Nurses, Lab provider, MDS Nurse, Business office manager, Pharmacy provider, Medical records, and Unit managers. However, the QAPI Attendee sign-in sheets for 2024 showed that neither the Lab provider nor the pharmacy provider attended any of the quarterly meetings, and the Medical Director missed the meetings on July 26 and October 23. During an interview, the Administrator acknowledged that while these members were invited to each meeting, they did not always attend and instead sent in their reports for review. The Administrator was unaware that attendance by certain members was required quarterly.
Inadequate Infection Control and Water Management in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by the improper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) in the care of two residents. Resident #17, who was admitted with diagnoses including Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), gastrostomy, and quadriplegia, had an EBP sign on the door to their room indicating the need for gown and glove use during high-contact care activities. However, observations revealed that Nurse #9 and Nurse #14 did not adhere to these precautions, with Nurse #9 failing to don a gown during gastrostomy tube care and Nurse #14 not using gloves and a gown while checking the resident's mattress. Similarly, Resident #52, admitted with dementia and MRSA, was also subject to EBP, as indicated by the sign on their door. Despite this, Hospice CNA #1 was observed performing high-contact care activities such as assisting the resident out of bed and providing morning care without wearing the required gown, although gloves were used during some activities. Interviews with the staff involved revealed a lack of awareness regarding the EBP requirements for these residents, indicating a gap in training or communication within the facility. Additionally, the facility did not have a written water management plan or documentation of a facility-specific risk assessment to identify potential growth and spread of Legionella and other waterborne pathogens in the water system. The facility's existing Healthcare Water Management Plan was not specific to the facility and included references to another facility's name and a schematic drawing of a cooling tower not present in the facility. Interviews with the Director of Maintenance and the Administrator confirmed the absence of a facility-specific water management committee, risk assessment, or plan.
Failure to Provide Baseline Care Plan Summaries
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two residents were offered or provided a summary of their baseline care plans within the required timeframe. Resident #60, who was admitted with severe cognitive impairment and had a healthcare proxy activated, did not have a baseline care plan reviewed with them or their responsible party. Interviews revealed that neither the resident nor their healthcare proxy were informed about the goals of the stay, the plan for discharge, or provided with a summary of the care plan. The social worker confirmed that the process for baseline care plans was not followed, as there was no documentation of a 72-hour meeting or evidence that a summary was offered. Similarly, Resident #250, who was alert and oriented, was not provided with a baseline care plan summary or involved in a meeting to discuss their treatment plan. The resident expressed a desire to meet with the facility and their family to discuss their care preferences and goals, but no such meeting occurred. Interviews with staff indicated that the process for initiating and documenting baseline care plans was not adhered to, as there was no evidence of a meeting or summary being offered to the resident.
Failure to Update Resident's Care Plan with Current HCP Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update the care plan for a resident to reflect the current status of their Health Care Proxy (HCP). The resident, who was admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory failure, had their HCP activated for a probable duration of 30 days due to a significant change in their condition. However, the care plan was not revised to indicate that the HCP should have been activated indefinitely, despite changes in the resident's medical orders and admission to hospice care. The deficiency was identified through a review of the resident's medical records and interviews with facility staff. The physician acknowledged forgetting to update the care plan to reflect the indefinite activation of the HCP. The social worker and regional clinical nurse confirmed that the care plan should have been updated to reflect the extended HCP activation, as the resident's HCP had made significant decisions regarding hospice admission and changes to advanced directives without the care plan being updated accordingly.
Deficiencies in Documentation and Care Implementation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards of practice in the care of three residents, leading to deficiencies in documentation and implementation of care. For one resident with metastatic lung cancer, the Registered Nurse (RN) who pronounced the resident deceased did not document the assessment in the medical record as required. The Director of Nursing (DON), who made the pronouncement, acknowledged the omission during an interview, admitting that he should have documented his assessment, family notification, and the removal of the body by the funeral home. Another resident, who had a stage four pressure injury, did not receive timely implementation of wound care recommendations. The resident's air mattress settings were not adjusted according to the physician's orders for 16 days after the initial recommendation by the Wound MD. Observations revealed that the air mattress was consistently set to 150 lbs., contrary to the prescribed 100 lbs. setting. The Infection Control Nurse confirmed that the orders should have been implemented when the recommendations were made. A third resident, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory failure, was transferred to the hospital without a physician's order. The nursing progress notes indicated the transfers, but the order listing report did not include an order for the transfers on the specified dates. Both a nurse and the DON confirmed the absence of the necessary orders, acknowledging that an order should have been obtained prior to the transfers.
Failure to Implement Safe Smoking Practices for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards for a resident, specifically in relation to smoking practices. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, depression, and hypertension, was observed smoking in the courtyard without staff supervision and without any protective smoking equipment. The resident's smoking habits were not accurately documented in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, and the facility's smoking policy was not adhered to, as the resident smoked outside of designated times and without supervision. The resident's initial and quarterly smoking evaluations were incomplete, failing to accurately reflect the resident's smoking status. Despite being cognitively intact, as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, the resident's smoking care plan lacked individualized interventions. The resident was also receiving a nicotine patch for smoking cessation, which was not consistent with their occasional smoking behavior when family visited. Interviews with facility staff, including the Activities Director and several nurses, revealed inconsistencies in the implementation of the facility's smoking policy. Staff acknowledged that the resident smoked only with family and that the facility did not provide smoking equipment for the resident. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the smoking evaluations were incomplete and not accurate, and that the resident's care plan should have been individualized to reflect their specific smoking habits. Additionally, the use of a nicotine patch while the resident continued to smoke was identified as an issue that needed to be addressed with the physician.
Failure to Maintain Oxygen Equipment Sanitation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services for a resident, specifically by not maintaining the oxygen equipment in a sanitary manner. The oxygen concentrator for a resident with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory failure was observed running without a filter on multiple occasions. This lack of a filter could potentially lead to contamination and infection, as the filter is designed to remove dust, particles, and bacteria from the air intake. The resident, who was cognitively intact and required continuous oxygen therapy, had physician's orders for oxygen at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula and for oxygen tubing to be changed weekly. Despite these orders, the oxygen concentrator was found without a filter during several observations. Interviews with nursing staff and the Director of Nursing confirmed the absence of the filter, and it was noted that the concentrator model was not one typically used by the facility.
Failure to Develop Trauma-Informed Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a person-centered plan of care that included trauma-informed approaches and identified triggers to avoid potential re-traumatization for two residents with a history of trauma. Resident #39, admitted with diagnoses including depression, psychosis, and anxiety, had a moderate cognitive impairment and reported trauma-related issues. Despite ongoing psychological services, the facility did not identify specific triggers related to the resident's trauma in the care plan. The Social Worker acknowledged that no quarterly assessments had been completed since April 2024, and the care plan was not individualized to the resident's needs. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness regarding the resident's trauma history and triggers. Similarly, Resident #22, admitted with bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, was cognitively intact and reported trauma-related issues. The facility's assessments and behavioral health service notes did not identify specific triggers related to the resident's trauma. Interviews with nursing staff indicated a lack of awareness of the resident's trauma history and triggers. The Social Worker confirmed that the care plan was not individualized to the resident's needs, and the Regional Clinical Nurse noted that the care plan was generic and not specific to the resident's trauma and needs. The facility's policy on trauma-informed care, revised in 2019, emphasized the importance of identifying trauma history and triggers to prevent re-traumatization. However, the facility failed to adhere to this policy, as evidenced by the lack of individualized care plans and the absence of identified triggers for both residents. The deficiency highlights the facility's failure to provide trauma-informed and culturally competent care, as required by their policy and regulatory standards.
Failure to Ensure Timely Physician Visits for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was seen by a physician at the required intervals as per regulatory standards and facility policy. Specifically, the resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including cerebral infarct, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, was not seen by a physician every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission and at least every 60 days thereafter. The medical record indicated a significant gap of 210 days between physician visits, which was not in compliance with the expected schedule of alternating visits between the physician and a nurse practitioner. Interviews with the physician and the Director of Nursing confirmed the oversight. The physician acknowledged that he was late in visiting the resident and should have conducted a visit around 60 days after the previous one. The Director of Nursing reiterated the expectation that residents should be seen in a timely manner, as per the facility's policy and regulatory requirements. This lapse in timely physician visits represents a deficiency in the facility's adherence to required medical oversight for residents.
Failure to Document and Act on Medication Regimen Reviews
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the monthly medication regimen reviews (MRR) for two residents were properly documented and included in the medical record. For one resident, the pharmacist completed MRRs over several months, but the recommendations were not available in the medical record or readily accessible for review. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that these reports were kept in a binder in his office and not part of the medical record, which was not in compliance with the facility's policy. Another resident's MRRs for three consecutive months were also not included in the medical record. The pharmacist's recommendations regarding a PRN medication for anxiety/agitation were not acted upon in a timely manner. Although the physician agreed with the recommendations, the necessary updates to the medication order, such as a 14-day stop date and re-evaluation, were not documented in the resident's medical record until the medication was eventually discontinued. Interviews with the DON and other staff revealed that the MRR recommendations were not being integrated into the residents' medical records as required. The DON stated that the recommendations were reviewed with physicians and then filed in a binder, making them inaccessible to unit staff unless specifically requested. This practice was contrary to the facility's policy, which required that such recommendations be documented in the resident's active record and acted upon promptly.
Medication Storage and Security Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all medications were stored according to accepted professional principles. In one instance, a medication storage room was found to have a clear controlled substance storage box inside a refrigerator that was locked but not permanently affixed to the shelf. This allowed the entire shelf with the box attached to be removed. The box contained a bottle of liquid Ativan, a Schedule IV controlled substance, labeled with a resident's name. Additionally, two cards of Dronabinol capsules, a Schedule III controlled substance, were found resting on a shelf without being stored in a permanently affixed locked box, contrary to the facility's policy. Furthermore, during a medication pass, a nurse left three medication blister packs unattended on top of a medication cart while walking away to the medication room. The medications included Amlodipine, Atorvastatin, and Plavix, and were left unsecured without direct supervision or communication to another nurse to watch them. This was against the facility's policy, which requires medication carts and supplies to be locked when not attended by authorized personnel.
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 416 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 4 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 Middleboro
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hannah B G Shaw Home | 3 mi | — | 9 | 0 |
| Nemasket Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center | 5.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Life Care Center Of Raynham | 6.4 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Wedgemere Healthcare | 8.2 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Marian Manor Of Taunton | 9.1 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Oakhill Healthcare.
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.