Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around February 2027
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 Harbert Hills Academy N H during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with significant mobility and neurological impairments was placed in a specialized chest harness connected to a wheelchair without required assessments, documentation, or consent. Facility staff did not complete or document regular monitoring or skin checks for the device, and were unable to provide evidence of evaluation or family consent, despite facility policy requiring these steps for physical restraint use.
The facility did not develop or implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans for four residents, omitting necessary interventions for conditions such as Viral Hepatitis, PTSD, hospice care, and elopement risk. Staff confirmed that these care needs should have been addressed in the care plans, but were not.
The facility did not maintain sufficient records to accurately account for the destruction of controlled substances for multiple residents. Controlled drugs were collected by the pharmacist and deposited at a police department drop box, but no receipts or documentation were provided to confirm destruction, and the police department kept no logs. This resulted in a lack of verifiable records for the disposition of controlled medications, as required by regulations.
The facility did not submit the required Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) staffing data for a quarter, resulting in missing RN hours for four or more days, as confirmed by the Administrator.
A resident with a PEG tube who required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) did not have EBP included in their care plan, lacked appropriate signage, and did not receive care in accordance with EBP protocols during medication administration. Staff interviews revealed limited understanding of EBP requirements, and observations confirmed that required personal protective equipment was not used.
Failure to Assess and Document Use of Physical Restraint Device
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete required assessments before or during the use of a specialized chest harness, which functioned as a physical restraint for a resident with significant mobility and neurological impairments. Facility policy stated that physical restraints would only be used as a last resort, with physician orders, consent, and after less restrictive measures had been tried and failed. The policy also required qualified staff to evaluate residents for device needs and to regularly check devices for safety and skin integrity. However, there was no evidence of an assessment, consent, or regular monitoring related to the harness used for this resident. The resident in question had a complex medical history, including Spastic Diplegic Cerebral Palsy, Epilepsy, Conversion Disorder with Seizures, Scoliosis, Postural Kyphosis, and reduced mobility. The resident's care plan acknowledged the use of a safety harness in the wheelchair and directed staff to assess circulation every shift, but there was no documentation of these checks on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) or Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the relevant periods. The resident was observed to be dependent for dressing and had poor memory, and the harness was justified in a seating and mobility evaluation as necessary for safety due to involuntary muscle spasms and decreased postural control. During interviews, staff members, including the MDS Coordinator and DON, were unable to provide documentation of assessments, skin checks, or signed consent for the harness. The harness was not listed on the TAR or MAR, and staff were unclear about whether it constituted a restraint or if appropriate monitoring was being conducted. The lack of assessment, documentation, and consent for the use of the harness constituted a failure to comply with facility policy and regulatory requirements regarding physical restraints.
Failure to Develop Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement person-centered, comprehensive care plans for four residents, as required by its own policy and federal regulations. For one resident with diagnoses including Schizophrenia, Viral Hepatitis, and severe cognitive impairment, the care plan did not include any interventions related to Viral Hepatitis, despite the diagnosis being present in the medical record. Another resident with PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, and Vascular Dementia, and severely impaired cognition, did not have PTSD addressed in the care plan, even though staff confirmed it should have been included. A third resident, who had Diabetes, Anxiety, malignant neoplasms, moderate cognitive impairment, and was receiving hospice services, had no hospice-related interventions documented in the care plan. The fourth resident, with Neuropathy, Anxiety, Dementia, and a history of elopement, had a physician order for a wander guard and documented elopement risk behaviors, but the care plan did not address elopement risk or the use of a wander guard. Staff interviews confirmed that these omissions were not in line with facility policy and expectations for care planning.
Failure to Maintain Accurate Records for Controlled Drug Destruction
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services that ensured a system of records for the receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate account of medication destruction for five sampled residents. Facility policy required that outdated or unused medications be returned to the contracted pharmacy for destruction by the pharmacist, and the Pharmacy Services Agreement specified compliance with federal and state regulations. However, review of medical records and destruction logs for multiple residents revealed that controlled substances, including Alprazolam, Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen, Morphine Sulfate, Tramadol, and Lorazepam, were documented as destroyed by the pharmacist and the DON, with all medications reportedly destroyed at the local police department. Interviews with facility staff, including the pharmacist, administrator, and DON, revealed that the process involved the pharmacist collecting the medications, signing them off on the resident record, and transporting them in a locked suitcase to the police department, where they were deposited in a sealed box in the lobby. No receipt or documentation was provided by the police department to confirm the destruction of the medications, and no logs were kept by the police department regarding the drop-off or destruction of the drugs. The facility's records only showed that the medications were sent back to the pharmacist, with no further proof of destruction. The lack of a detailed and verifiable record of the destruction of controlled substances meant that the facility could not accurately account for the disposition of these medications. This deficiency was identified for all five sampled residents reviewed for drug destruction, each of whom had controlled substances documented for destruction without sufficient supporting records to confirm the process was completed in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Failure to Submit Required PBJ Staffing Data
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to electronically submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information to CMS for Quarter 2 of 2024, as required by federal regulation 483.70(p). Review of the Quarterly Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) for the period of January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024, showed that there were no Registered Nurse (RN) hours reported for four or more days within the quarter. During an interview, the Administrator confirmed that the required PBJ data for this period was not submitted.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement appropriate infection prevention and control practices for a resident who required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) due to the presence of a PEG tube. Facility policy required that residents needing EBP be identified in their care plans, have discrete signage at their room entrance, and that staff wear gloves and gowns during high-contact care activities, including medication administration via PEG tube. However, the resident's care plan did not include EBP, and there was no EBP signage on the resident's door. During medication administration, the LPN did not don a gown or follow EBP protocols while accessing the PEG tube. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of understanding and awareness regarding EBP requirements. Several staff members were unable to accurately describe when EBP should be used or identify any residents currently under EBP. The Director of Nursing and Administrator also demonstrated limited knowledge of EBP, with the DON stating she did not recall EBP in her training and the Administrator acknowledging the recent creation of a policy. Observations confirmed the absence of EBP signage and the failure to use required personal protective equipment during resident care.
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 10 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 Savannah
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Park Rest Hardin County Health Center | 8.9 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Hardin Home | 8.9 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Hardin County Nh | 9.5 mi | — | 5 | 0 |
| Savannah Nursing And Rehabilitation | 9.9 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Adamsville Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center | 18.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Harbert Hills Academy N H.
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.