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 Gables Care Center Inc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The deficiency centers on the administrator’s failure to lead and operate the facility in a way that supports residents’ highest practicable well-being, as required by her job description and the facility’s resident rights policy. Staff, residents, and resident representatives consistently reported that the administrator was unapproachable, rude, and condescending, frequently yelling at staff in public areas such as the nurse’s station in front of residents, visitors, and other staff, and threatening staff jobs and paychecks when they attempted to advocate or raise concerns. Multiple residents stated that the administrator rarely interacted with them, showed favoritism toward certain residents, dismissed or cut off their concerns, and did not follow up, leaving them feeling that she did not have their best interests at heart. Several staff and residents described a tense, toxic atmosphere and a pervasive fear of retaliation that made both staff and residents afraid to report issues or advocate for care, with one resident becoming tearful and expressing fear of being discharged after speaking with surveyors. Complaints about the administrator had been made to corporate HR and the compliance line, but staff perceived little or no follow-up, while the administrator also served as the facility’s compliance officer, further contributing to concerns about reporting and accountability.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide adequate, individualized activities and sufficient activity staffing. Resident council minutes and staff and resident interviews described activities being cut short, loss of live entertainment and in-person religious services, and use of activity staff for non-activity tasks such as snack passing and obtaining menu selections. Activity calendars showed limited variety, no separate programming for cognitively impaired residents, and very few one-on-one or independent activities. Observations during a bingo session showed several cognitively impaired residents present without needed assistance or meaningful participation. Records for two residents with dementia, anxiety, and mobility issues showed care plans calling for daily 1:1 room visits by activity staff, but there was no documentation that these visits occurred over several months, despite a facility policy stating that activities should reflect residents’ cultural and religious interests and be tailored with appropriate accommodations.
The facility failed to ensure a resident with contractures received appropriate services to maintain mobility and prevent further decrease in range of motion. Despite the care plan indicating the need for double washcloth rolls in both hands, the resident was observed without them on multiple occasions. Staff interviews confirmed the washcloths were not applied as required.
The facility failed to ensure that an indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing were not resting on the floor for a resident with urinary retention. Observations confirmed the catheter drainage bag and tubing were touching the floor under the resident's wheelchair, which was against the facility's policy. An LPN verified this issue.
A resident was inappropriately prescribed ciprofloxacin for a UTI despite showing no symptoms, which did not meet the McGeer Criteria for treatment. The physician continued the antibiotic after being notified by the Infection Preventionist/LPN, contrary to the facility's Antibiotic Stewardship Program policy.
Administrator’s Conduct Creates Fearful, Non-Supportive Environment and Undermines Resident Rights
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to administer the facility in a manner that enabled all residents to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The administrator’s job description required her to lead, guide, and direct operations in accordance with regulations and facility policies, ensure compassionate quality care, perform rounds to know residents by name and sight, be available and approachable to staff and residents, manage and minimize facility risk, and promote and protect resident rights. The facility’s Resident Rights policy required that all residents be treated equally and that staff be educated on resident rights and the facility’s responsibility to properly care for residents. Resident council minutes documented that residents wanted administration to be more present with them, and the administrator was also listed on the corporate compliance poster as the facility’s compliance officer, meaning complaints called into the compliance line would be forwarded to her. Multiple interviews with staff, residents, and resident representatives described the administrator as unapproachable, rude, condescending, and prone to yelling at staff in front of residents, visitors, and other staff. Anonymous employees reported fear of retaliation if they spoke with the state survey agency or raised concerns, stating that staff who advocated for residents or voiced suggestions were threatened, demoted, or felt their jobs were at risk. Several employees described specific incidents where the administrator entered units and loudly demanded that aides leave and return for another shift, threatening that their paychecks would be affected, and where she screamed at nurses at the nurse’s station about issues such as a medication cart or mask use, took photos with her cell phone, and belittled staff in public areas. These events were witnessed by residents, visitors, and families, and staff reported that residents were startled, uncomfortable, and fearful, and that the environment felt tense and unsafe. Residents and their representatives reported that the administrator did not interact with most residents, showed favoritism toward certain residents, and did not listen to or follow up on resident concerns. A resident stated that the administrator rarely visited residents, always turned down requests, and made it hard for staff to do their jobs. Multiple residents and anonymous residents reported that when they brought up concerns, the administrator became defensive, cut them off, and did not take action, and that they felt she did not have their best interests at heart. One resident was observed crying after speaking with the state survey agency, expressing fear of being “kicked out” of the facility for reporting concerns about the administrator. Residents and staff also reported that good staff had already left and more might leave due to how the administrator spoke to them, and that residents felt they no longer had a voice and were afraid to advocate for themselves because of fear of retaliation. During a resident council meeting, after the administrator and DON left the room, residents stated they wanted a new administrator, described feeling that their concerns were dismissed or minimized with explanations about money or numbers they did not understand, and reiterated that the administrator yelled at staff in front of residents and visitors and treated residents differently. Corporate Human Resources reported that multiple complaints about the administrator had been called in over the past year, though it was unclear whether any formal disciplinary action had been taken. Staff noted that complaints to the corporate compliance line did not appear to result in follow-up and expressed concern that the administrator’s role as compliance officer might affect how complaints were handled. Across interviews, staff and residents consistently described a toxic, tense atmosphere, lack of administrative support, fear of retaliation, and a perception that the administrator did not prioritize residents’ needs, care, or interests. These actions and inactions by the administrator, in contrast to the expectations in her job description and the facility’s Resident Rights policy, resulted in the facility not being administered in a manner that enabled all residents to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Failure to Provide Adequate, Individualized Activities and Sufficient Activity Staffing
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide activities that met all residents’ needs and to maintain adequate activity staffing. Resident Council minutes documented residents reporting that activities were being cut short due to insufficient staff and that live musical entertainers were no longer provided. The Administrator responded that activities were not being shortened because of staffing and explained that entertainers were now required to have a tax identification number to be issued a 1099, and that no entertainers were willing to comply. Review of activity calendars for several months showed only one facility-wide calendar with no separate programming for residents with cognitive impairments, limited variety in scheduled activities, and very few one-on-one or independent activities/room visits. Activities were largely repetitive, consisting of daily coffee and discussion with distribution of the Daily Chronicle, weekly Bible study and church services, and bingo three times per week. Interviews and observations showed that activity staff were being used for non-activity tasks and that residents with higher needs were discouraged from attending group activities. An activities staff member reported that the facility previously had pastors come in for Sunday services but now relied on televised services, and a resident expressed a desire for more religious services, particularly Catholic, stating that television services were not interactive. Observations showed an activities assistant hurriedly delivering the Daily Chronicle with minimal interaction and later spending nearly two hours going room to room obtaining menu selections for the next day’s meals. Multiple residents and staff reported that the activities department lacked sufficient staff, that one activity aide was routinely diverted to pass snacks and obtain menus, and that staff had been told by the Administrator not to bring residents to group activities if they needed help, as it was considered unfair to other residents. Anonymous employees stated that residents who were not cognitively intact or were significantly disabled were not to attend activities like bingo if they could not participate independently, and that in-person religious services had not occurred for approximately two months. Specific residents’ records and observations further demonstrated unmet activity needs. One resident with severe dementia, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and impaired mobility had a care plan calling for daily one-on-one room visits by activity staff to promote socialization and reduce boredom, but electronic records for three consecutive months showed no documentation that these visits occurred. Another resident with moderate dementia, anxiety, difficulty walking, and anorexia had a similar care plan for daily one-on-one room visits, also without any documented completion over the same three-month period. During a bingo activity observed with about 20 participants, two activity assistants were present, but one resident sat with eyes closed and no active participation despite having a bingo card and chips, and two cognitively impaired residents were seated without adequate assistance; one was not given a bingo card or chips and continuously chewed on a blanket, and another could not follow the game despite having a card and chips. An employee reported that there was room for improvement in activities, that there were not enough activities, residents were bored, and residents felt their activity suggestions were not being considered. These findings contrasted with the facility’s written activities policy, which stated that activities would reflect residents’ cultural and religious interests and be person-appropriate, with accommodations in schedules, supplies, and timing to optimize participation.
Failure to Maintain Range of Motion Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident with contractures received appropriate services to maintain mobility and prevent further decrease in range of motion. Resident #51, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, diabetes mellitus, and contracture of the left hand, was observed on multiple occasions without the prescribed double washcloth rolls in both hands. The care plan, dated 08/25/23 and revised on 04/10/24, indicated the need for these washcloths to prevent further decline in range of motion. However, observations on 04/10/24 and 04/11/24 revealed that the resident did not have the washcloths in place as required by the care plan. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment indicated that Resident #51 had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for various activities of daily living. Despite this, the intervention to place double rolled washcloths into the resident's hands was documented as completed for the day shift on 04/11/24. Interviews with a State tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) and a Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor confirmed that the washcloths were not applied as per the care plan, highlighting a failure in following the prescribed interventions to maintain the resident's range of motion.
Failure to Maintain Proper Catheter Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that an indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing were not resting on the floor for Resident #3, who had an intact and independent cognition level and used an indwelling urinary catheter due to urinary obstruction causing urinary retention. Observations on multiple occasions revealed the catheter drainage bag and tubing were touching the floor under the resident's wheelchair. An interview with an LPN confirmed that the urinary catheter drainage tubing and bag were resting on the floor, which was against the facility's policy. The facility policy, revised on 07/01/23, explicitly stated that catheter tubing and bags should not rest on the floor.
Inappropriate Antibiotic Use for Asymptomatic Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate antibiotic use and that infections met treatment criteria, affecting one resident. Resident #25, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including dementia, dysphagia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was prescribed ciprofloxacin for a urinary tract infection (UTI) based on a urinalysis showing greater than 100,000 CFU/ml Klebsiella Pneumonia. However, the resident exhibited no symptoms of a UTI, which did not meet the McGeer Criteria for treatment. Despite this, the physician chose to continue the antibiotic after being notified by the Infection Preventionist/LPN. The facility's Infection Control Log and policy on Antibiotic Stewardship Program indicated that the use of ciprofloxacin was not justified based on the resident's lack of symptoms. The Infection Preventionist/LPN confirmed that there was no indication for the antibiotic and that the physician was informed but opted to proceed with the treatment. This failure to adhere to the facility's policy and the McGeer Criteria resulted in inappropriate antibiotic use for Resident #25.
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 101 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 Hopedale
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carriage Inn Of Cadiz Inc | 6.2 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Dixon Healthcare Center | 10 mi | — | 5 | 0 |
| Sienna Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation | 10.9 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
| Sienna Hills Nursing & Rehabilitation | 12.2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Steubenville Country Club Manor | 12.3 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Gables Care Center Inc.
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.