Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Webster Park Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and a legal guardian underwent multiple wound treatments without the guardian's consent. The facility failed to inform the guardian of the resident's condition and treatment plans, leading to unauthorized procedures. The consultant wound physician and facility staff did not communicate with the guardian, assuming the resident could consent, despite being legally incapacitated.
The facility failed to inform residents about their right to file grievances anonymously. During a resident group meeting, 14 residents expressed unawareness of this option, confirmed by the Activity Director. The grievance policy allows anonymous submissions, but posted information lacked this detail, and no grievance information was found on the first floor. The Administrator was unaware of this issue.
A facility failed to implement a nicotine patch taper for a resident, perform wound treatments without legal guardian consent, and ensure consistent use of a prescribed hand carrot device. The nicotine patch taper was not initiated despite physician agreement, and the wound physician performed treatments without guardian consent due to unawareness of the resident's legal status. Additionally, the hand carrot device was inconsistently applied, with no documentation of refusal or intolerance.
The facility exceeded the acceptable medication error rate of 5%, reaching 7.14%, due to two nurses administering multivitamins with minerals instead of the prescribed multivitamins without minerals to two residents. Both residents had specific medical conditions, and the errors were acknowledged by the nurses and noted by the DON.
A resident in a LTC facility was unable to independently access a call light due to the absence of a pull string on the switch above their bed. The resident, who required assistance with personal care, relied on their roommate to request help. Staff interviews confirmed that each resident should have their own call light, but the deficiency persisted until it was addressed after a surveyor's visit.
Failure to Inform Legal Guardian of Resident's Treatment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the legal guardian of a resident with moderate cognitive impairment was informed of changes in the resident's skin condition and the associated treatment plans. The resident, who had been adjudicated incapacitated and had a legal guardian appointed, developed wounds on the left heel and toes. Despite the resident's inability to provide informed consent, the facility proceeded with multiple treatments, including surgical debridement and skin substitute grafting, without notifying the legal guardian or obtaining their consent. The medical records and interviews revealed that the consultant wound physician performed various procedures on the resident's wounds over several months. The physician documented obtaining consent from the resident, who was not legally capable of providing it, and was unaware of the need to involve the legal guardian. The facility's nursing progress notes also failed to indicate any communication with the legal guardian regarding the resident's condition and treatment options. Interviews with the legal guardian confirmed that she had not been informed of the resident's wounds or the treatments administered. The guardian had not been contacted by the facility since a care plan meeting months prior, and she assumed the resident's condition was stable. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the oversight and confirmed that the procedures should not have been performed without the guardian's consent. The Unit Manager also could not verify any communication with the guardian regarding the resident's treatment.
Residents Unaware of Anonymous Grievance Filing Option
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were fully informed about their right to file grievances anonymously. During a resident group meeting attended by 14 residents from various units, it was revealed that none of the residents were aware of their ability to submit grievances without identifying themselves. This lack of awareness was confirmed by the Activity Director, who acknowledged that residents often refrain from voicing complaints due to a reluctance to disclose their identities. The facility's grievance policy, dated January 2022, states that residents are provided with information on filing grievances upon admission and that grievances can be submitted anonymously. However, observations during the survey showed that the posted grievance information on the second and third floors did not mention the option for anonymous submissions. Additionally, no grievance process information was found on the first floor. The Administrator, who serves as the Grievance Officer, was unaware of the residents' lack of knowledge regarding anonymous grievance filing.
Deficiencies in Care and Consent Procedures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a taper and discontinuation of a Nicotine patch for a resident, as recommended by the consultant pharmacist and agreed upon by the resident's physician. Despite the physician's agreement and signature on the recommendation, the taper was not initiated, and the Nicotine patch continued to be administered at the same dosage. The Unit Manager acknowledged that the signed recommendation should have been implemented, but it remained in the physician's binder without action. Another deficiency involved a resident with dementia who had a legal guardian. The consultant wound physician performed multiple treatments, including surgical debridement and skin grafts, without obtaining informed consent from the legal guardian. The legal guardian confirmed that they were not informed of the treatments and did not provide consent. The physician was unaware of the resident's legal status and obtained consent directly from the resident, who was unable to provide it due to cognitive impairment. The facility also failed to ensure that a resident with severe cognitive impairment consistently wore a prescribed hand carrot device. Observations revealed that the device was not applied as ordered, and there was no documentation of refusal or inability to tolerate the device. Staff interviews indicated a lack of awareness regarding the wearing schedule, and the resident's representative noted inconsistency in the device's application. The DON stated that any refusal or difficulty should have been documented, but this was not done.
Medication Error Rate Exceeds 5% Due to Incorrect Multivitamin Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, resulting in a rate of 7.14% due to errors made by two nurses. Nurse #4 administered a multivitamin with minerals to Resident #22, despite the physician's order specifying a multivitamin without minerals. This resident, admitted in July 2022, had medical conditions including atrial fibrillation and lymphedema. The error was observed during a medication pass, where the nurse did not adhere to the physician's specific order, leading to the administration of the incorrect medication. Similarly, Nurse #5 made an error while administering medication to Resident #64, who was admitted in January 2021 with conditions such as thrombocytopenia and hypercholesterolemia. The nurse gave a multivitamin with minerals instead of the ordered multivitamin without minerals. Both nurses acknowledged the errors during interviews, confirming that the medications were not administered according to the physician's orders. The Director of Nurses was aware of these errors, emphasizing the importance of following physician's orders for medication administration.
Resident Lacked Independent Access to Call Light
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a call light was accessible and within reach for a resident, identified as Resident #37, who was part of a sample of 21 residents. Resident #37, who was cognitively intact and required assistance with personal care, did not have a call light string attached to the switch above their bed, making it impossible for them to independently call for assistance. Instead, Resident #37 relied on their roommate, Resident #91, to pull the call light string attached to their own bedrail when assistance was needed. This arrangement was confirmed through multiple observations and interviews with both residents and staff. Interviews with staff, including nurses and certified nursing assistants, revealed that all residents should have their own call light to request assistance. However, it was noted that the call light string for Resident #37 was missing, and the residents had been sharing a call light. The Unit Manager acknowledged that the strings attached to the call light switches were prone to breaking easily, but it was unclear how long the deficiency had persisted. The Director of Maintenance confirmed that the call light for Resident #37 was repaired after the surveyor's visit, but the duration of the deficiency was not known.
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 547 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 Rockland
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southshore Health Care Center | 0.4 mi | — | 6 | 0 |
| Dwyer Home | 2.5 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Southwood At Norwell Nursing Ctr | 2.8 mi | — | 9 | 0 |
| Colony Center For Health And Rehabilitation | 2.9 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Queen Anne Nursing Home, Inc | 3.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Webster Park Rehabilitation And Healthcare 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.