Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
A standard survey is most likely before 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 Mapleton Community Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to ensure dietary staff followed infection control practices, as dietary aides were observed handling cups by the rim with bare hands during food service. Despite having received training, the aides acknowledged their improper handling, which contradicted the facility's policy on dish and utensil handling.
The facility failed to follow infection control practices in wound care, equipment cleaning, and laundry handling. A resident's overbed table was not cleaned before and after a dressing change, and mechanical lifts used for resident transfers were not disinfected between uses. Additionally, housekeeping staff sorted soiled laundry in the same room as clean laundry without wearing gowns, risking contamination.
A facility failed to accurately code a resident's MDS assessment, omitting hospice services despite the resident's serious medical conditions and prognosis. The error was confirmed by the facility's MDS coordinator, DON, and administrator, who acknowledged the need for accurate coding as per the facility's policy.
A resident with Parkinson's, dementia, and depression was not referred for a PASARR Level II evaluation after new diagnoses of anxiety and psychotic disorders. Facility staff were unaware of the process for Level II screenings, and the policy lacked guidance on referring residents with new mental health conditions.
A newly admitted resident, who was cognitively intact and required significant assistance, did not receive a copy of their baseline care plan despite attending a care conference. Facility staff confirmed that the care plan was not offered unless requested, contrary to policy stating residents have the right to review their care plan.
A resident with a stage four pressure ulcer on the coccyx was not repositioned or offloaded for nearly three hours, despite being dependent on staff for repositioning. The resident's care plan lacked specific interventions for repositioning, and staff interviews revealed a lack of adherence to the required repositioning schedule. The facility's pressure ulcer prevention policy was not adequately implemented.
Infection Control Breach in Dietary Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that dietary staff adhered to proper infection control practices during food service in the dining room, potentially affecting all 47 residents. Observations revealed that dietary aides were handling cups by the rim with bare hands while filling and serving beverages. Specifically, on multiple occasions, dietary aides were seen holding the rims of plastic tumblers and a thermal coffee mug when placing them on tables for residents. Interviews with the dietary manager and the involved dietary aides confirmed that the staff had received training on the correct method of handling cups to prevent contamination. Despite this training, the aides acknowledged their improper handling of the cups, which was contrary to the facility's policy on dish and utensil handling. The policy, signed by the aides, explicitly stated that fingers should not be placed on the lip or contact surfaces of cups and glasses.
Infection Control Deficiencies in Wound Care, Equipment Cleaning, and Laundry Handling
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to proper infection prevention and control practices during the care of a resident with a pressure ulcer. The resident, who was cognitively intact and required substantial assistance with activities of daily living, had a stage four pressure ulcer on the coccyx. During a dressing change, an LPN used the resident's overbed table as a work surface without cleaning or disinfecting it, nor did she use a barrier between the table and the supplies. The LPN also failed to remove the resident's personal items from the table before using it for the dressing change. After the procedure, the table was not cleaned before the resident's breakfast tray was placed on it, as evidenced by multiple water rings on the surface. The facility also did not ensure that mechanical transfer lifts were cleaned after use with residents. Two residents, one with hemiplegia and the other with dementia, required mechanical lifts for transfers. Observations revealed that nursing assistants did not disinfect the lifts immediately after use, despite the facility's policy requiring such cleaning to prevent the spread of infection. The DON confirmed that mechanical lifts are shared among multiple residents and should be cleaned between uses. Additionally, the facility's laundry practices were found to be inadequate. Housekeeping staff were observed sorting soiled laundry in the same room as clean laundry without wearing gowns, which could lead to contamination. The environmental services director confirmed that laundry staff do not wear gowns when sorting soiled laundry, and the DON acknowledged that soiled laundry should be sorted in a separate room to prevent infection spread. The facility's infection prevention and control manual directs staff to wear gowns if gross soiling of uniforms is likely.
Inaccurate MDS Assessment for Hospice Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's status was accurately identified in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. The resident, who had medical diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of the colon, malignant neoplasm of the tail of the pancreas, and mild intellectual disability, was receiving hospice services. However, the significant change MDS assessment did not mention hospice services under section O, despite indicating a prognosis of conditions or chronic diseases that may result in a life expectancy of less than six months. This discrepancy was confirmed during an interview with the registered nurse who is the facility MDS coordinator, as well as the director of nursing and the administrator, who acknowledged that the MDS should have been coded accurately. The facility's MDS Accuracy Policy from March 2019 states that the RAI Manual should be utilized for accurate coding, and any coding errors should be investigated and modified.
Failure to Complete PASARR Level II Referral for Resident with New Mental Health Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) Level II referral was completed upon a significant change in condition for a resident diagnosed with Parkinson's, dementia, and depression. Initially, the resident was not considered to have a serious mental illness or intellectual disability. However, the resident later received new diagnoses of anxiety disorder and psychotic disorder with hallucinations. Despite these changes, the facility did not notify the State Mental Health Agency for further evaluation and determination of the need for specialized services. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of understanding and process for conducting Level II screenings. The social services designee was unsure of the process for Level II screening, and the director of nursing admitted there was no process in place to ensure residents with new qualifying mental illness diagnoses would receive a Level II screening. The administrator also acknowledged the facility's lack of knowledge regarding when a Level II screening would be required. The facility's preadmission screening policy did not address the referral process for residents exhibiting new or possible serious mental disorders.
Failure to Provide Baseline Care Plan to Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a summary of the baseline care plan to a newly admitted resident, identified as R26, who was cognitively intact and required substantial assistance with activities of daily living. R26 was admitted with diagnoses including sepsis, cerebral infarction, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, and was receiving insulin, antidepressant, antibiotic, and antiplatelet medications. Despite attending a care conference where the care plan was discussed, R26 reported not receiving a copy of the baseline care plan and expressed a desire to have one to share with family. Interviews with facility staff, including the social worker, director of nursing, and assistant director of nursing, confirmed that the baseline care plan was not offered to R26 or their family unless specifically requested. The facility's policy stated that residents have the right to review and participate in their care plan, but it was unclear who was responsible for ensuring the resident received a copy. This oversight led to the deficiency identified in the report.
Failure to Reposition Resident with Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely repositioning for a resident who was dependent on staff for repositioning and had a pressure ulcer on her coccyx. The resident, who was cognitively intact and required substantial assistance with most activities of daily living, was observed to have a stage four pressure ulcer that was healing. Despite being at risk for skin breakdown due to immobility and urinary incontinence, the resident did not have a turning or repositioning program in place. During a continuous observation period, the resident was not repositioned or offloaded for nearly three hours while seated in a wheelchair, contrary to physician orders that required repositioning every two hours. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to the repositioning schedule. A nursing assistant could not specify when the resident was last repositioned, and a licensed practical nurse acknowledged that the resident had not been laid down that morning. The director of nursing was unaware of the failure to reposition the resident and expected staff to follow the physician's orders. The facility's pressure ulcer prevention policy indicated that residents with pressure ulcers should receive necessary treatment and services to promote healing, but this was not adequately implemented for the resident in question.
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 72 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 Mapleton
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laurels Peak Care & Rehabilitation Center | 15.2 mi | — | 19 | 0 |
| Hillcrest Care & Rehabilitation Center | 16.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Oaklawn Care & Rehabilitation Center | 16.4 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Pathstone Living | 16.7 mi | — | 25 | 0 |
| Parkview Care Center | 17.7 mi | — | 8 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Mapleton Community Home.
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.