Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens 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 Avir At Azalea Heights during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A cognitively intact female resident with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, depression, muscle weakness, and dependence on staff for toileting received incontinent care from two CNAs while her roommate was present in the room, and the privacy curtain was not pulled at any time. The resident’s care plan documented a self-care deficit and need for assisted incontinent care, and facility policies on perineal care and resident rights required staff to provide privacy, including use of doors, curtains, and blinds. In post-incident interviews, both CNAs acknowledged that privacy should have been provided during the care and recognized that doing so is part of respecting resident rights and dignity, while the DON and Administrator confirmed their expectation that staff follow these privacy practices.
A CNA provided incontinent care to a resident with assistance from another CNA and failed to perform hand hygiene between multiple glove changes during perineal and brief care, only using alcohol-based hand rub before entering and after exiting the room. The CNA acknowledged that hand hygiene should occur between glove changes but cited the location of hand sanitizer dispensers in the hallway and uncertainty about portable sanitizer as reasons for noncompliance. The DON and Administrator both described expectations that staff perform hand hygiene before and after care and in conjunction with glove use, and the facility’s hand hygiene policy required hand hygiene immediately before resident contact and after glove removal, which was not followed during the observed care.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of falls was not provided with the required bed bolsters as outlined in her care plan. Instead, a CNA used a different positioning device, and the bed was left in a high position. The resident was later found on the floor with injuries, including a fractured femur, after falling from bed. Staff interviews confirmed knowledge of the care plan requirements, but the prescribed interventions were not followed.
The facility's kitchen operations were found to be unsanitary, with issues such as empty paper towel dispensers, improper storage of food items, and inadequate sanitizing procedures. Logs for sanitizing were pre-filled inaccurately, and the ice machine had black debris. An opened juice container was not labeled with the open date, violating food safety standards.
A facility failed to document a resident's enteral feeding orders in the EHR, resulting in a lack of recorded administration of liquid nutrition for four days. The oversight occurred when an LVN did not enter the order after receiving a verbal report from an agency nurse, despite the facility's policy requiring accurate documentation during admissions.
The facility failed to provide necessary hygiene services for two residents, one of whom did not receive a bath for five days after admission, and another who did not receive a bath or shower for four weeks. Documentation inconsistencies and staff interviews highlighted a lack of adherence to proper hygiene protocols.
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision for a resident with dementia who had a history of elopement. The resident was admitted without proper assessment, leading to an elopement incident the following day. Staff were unaware of her elopement history, and the admission assessment was inaccurately completed.
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including Alzheimer's and anxiety disorder, was prescribed Lorazepam. The facility failed to consistently document monitoring for adverse side effects of the medication, particularly during changes in dosage. Interviews with staff revealed awareness of the importance of monitoring, but documentation was inconsistent. The DON acknowledged the lapse and stated there was no specific system in place for consistent monitoring prior to 4/19/24.
Failure to Provide Privacy During Incontinent Care
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to provide personal privacy during incontinent care for 1 of 7 residents reviewed. The resident was an adult female with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, anxiety, major depressive disorder, muscle weakness, and a need for assistance with personal care. Her MDS showed she was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15, usually understood and was understood by others, and was dependent on staff for toileting. Her care plan, revised 1/3/26, documented a self-care deficit related to impaired physical mobility and called for incontinent care with one-person staff assist. On 4/29/26 at 1:16 p.m., CNA A, with assistance from CNA B, provided incontinent care to the resident while her roommate was lying in bed with eyes closed. During this care, the CNAs did not pull the privacy curtain at any time. In interviews, CNA B acknowledged that the privacy curtain should have been pulled and admitted the resident had not been provided privacy, stating she forgot to ensure the curtain was pulled and recognizing privacy was needed so no one could watch and so the resident was covered. CNA A stated that during incontinent care the door should be shut or the privacy curtain pulled and believed the curtain had been shut during this care, and identified resident rights as the reason for providing privacy. The DON and Administrator both stated their expectation that staff provide privacy during personal care by closing the door, pulling the privacy curtain, and closing the blinds, consistent with the facility’s Perineal Care procedure and Resident Rights policy, which require providing privacy and treating residents with dignity and respect, including privacy and confidentiality.
Failure to Perform Hand Hygiene Between Glove Changes During Incontinent Care
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s infection prevention and control program related to hand hygiene practices during incontinent care. During an observation on 4/29/26, CNA A and CNA B used alcohol-based hand rub from a dispenser outside a resident’s room, performed hand hygiene, and donned clean gloves before beginning care. Once inside the room, CNA A moved the resident’s bed, removed her gloves, and repeatedly failed to perform hand hygiene between subsequent glove changes while providing perineal and incontinent care. Specifically, CNA A opened the resident’s brief and cleansed the pelvic and vaginal area, then removed gloves without hand hygiene; later, after the resident was rolled to her side and the bottom area and soiled brief were cleaned and removed, CNA A again removed gloves without hand hygiene. CNA A continued care by handling a clean brief and chuck pad, repeatedly changing gloves without performing hand hygiene until after exiting the room and disposing of trash. In interviews, CNA A stated that hand hygiene should be performed prior to and after providing care and between glove changes, and acknowledged she did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes during the observed care. She attributed this to the placement of hand sanitizer dispensers in the hallway outside resident rooms and uncertainty about the location of small bottles of hand sanitizer within the facility. The DON stated she expected staff to perform hand hygiene before entering a room, before donning gloves, after removing gloves, during care, and when exiting a room, and the Administrator similarly stated expectations for hand hygiene before and after care, eating, using the restroom, and with glove use. Review of the facility’s Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy, updated 1/2025, indicated that hand hygiene is considered the primary means to prevent the spread of healthcare-associated infections, that hand hygiene products are to be readily accessible, and that hand hygiene is indicated immediately before touching a resident, after contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces, after touching a resident or the resident’s environment, and immediately after glove removal. The observed practice by CNA A did not align with these stated expectations and policy requirements.
Failure to Implement Fall Prevention Interventions Resulting in Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with severe cognitive impairment, total dependence for activities of daily living, and a history of falls was not provided with the required safety interventions as outlined in her care plan. The resident, who had diagnoses including anoxic brain damage, convulsions, aphasia, and pseudobulbar affect, was care planned to have bolsters on her bed to minimize the risk of rolling out and for the bed to be kept at an appropriate height when unattended. On the day of the incident, the resident was returned to bed by a CNA who used a black wedge positioning device instead of the prescribed bolsters, which were found stored in front of the closet rather than on the bed. The incident was discovered when a nurse heard a loud thud and found the resident on the floor beside her bed, with a laceration to her face and a right leg injury. The bed was observed to be in a higher position, typically used for mechanical lift transfers, and there were no bolsters or wedge cushions on or around the bed at the time. The resident was subsequently diagnosed with a fractured right femur and required hospitalization and surgery. Interviews with staff revealed that the CNA was aware of the care plan requirements but did not use the bolsters, instead opting for a different device that was not part of the resident's care plan. Further review indicated that the CNA did not provide a clear reason for not using the prescribed bolsters, stating only that she used what was present on the bed that morning. The facility's documentation confirmed that all staff had access to the resident's care plan and Kardex, which specified the need for bolsters and bed positioning. The failure to implement these interventions as planned directly led to the resident's fall and subsequent injury.
Sanitation Deficiencies in Kitchen Operations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in its kitchen, as observed during a survey. The paper towel dispensers at the hand wash sink and employee restroom were found to be empty, which could hinder proper hand hygiene. Additionally, a scoop was improperly stored inside a bulk flour bin, and the utensil drawer was soiled with food debris and dried liquid. Opened bags of brown sugar and potato chips were not properly sealed, which could compromise food safety. The facility's three-compartment sink was not sanitizing properly, and the logs for the sink and dish machine were pre-filled with results for meals that had not yet occurred. This indicates a lack of proper monitoring and documentation of sanitizing conditions. The ice machine in the dining area was found to have copious amounts of black debris on the ice chute, despite being cleaned by a vendor recently. The maintenance supervisor noted that the kitchen staff were supposed to clean the machine regularly, but there was no documentation to support this. Furthermore, a reach-in cooler contained an opened container of nectar thick orange juice that was not labeled with the open date, contrary to the package instructions. These deficiencies in food storage, preparation, and sanitation could place residents at risk of foodborne illness, as the facility did not adhere to its own policies and professional standards for maintaining sanitary conditions.
Failure to Document Enteral Feeding Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards for a resident who was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including dysphagia and a gastrostomy tube for enteral feeding. Upon review, it was found that the order for enteral feedings from the hospital was not documented in the resident's physician's orders at the facility. Additionally, there was no documentation of the administration of liquid nutrition for four consecutive days after the resident's admission, despite observations confirming that the resident was receiving the nutrition. Interviews revealed that the failure to document the enteral feeding order was due to an oversight by LVN B, who did not enter the order into the electronic health records (EHR) after receiving a verbal report from an agency nurse. The Director of Clinical Operations Nurse confirmed that LVN B completed the new admission form but missed entering the feeding order, although all other admission orders were entered correctly. The facility's policy requires nurses to document assessments and orders accurately, especially during admissions, but this was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Provide Necessary Hygiene Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain acceptable grooming and personal hygiene for two residents. Resident #1 did not receive a bath until five days after his admission, despite being dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADLs) including bathing. His family member observed that he remained in the same clothes for the first four days and did not appear to have received a shower. Documentation confirmed that Resident #1 did not receive a shower or bath from the date of admission until five days later. Resident #2, who required substantial assistance for bathing due to paraplegia and other medical conditions, did not receive a bath or shower for four weeks. During interviews, Resident #2 reported not receiving a shower or bed bath and noted that staff seemed unwilling to go through the process of providing a shower. Observations confirmed that Resident #2 had greasy hair and a faint body odor. Documentation inconsistencies were found, with some CNAs denying they had provided the documented care, and one CNA admitting to sharing login information with agency staff for documentation purposes. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and the Director of Nursing (DON), emphasized the importance of regular bathing for hygiene and skin health. However, the facility's policy and procedure on activities of daily living did not specifically address ensuring dependent residents received regular showers or baths. This lack of adherence to proper hygiene protocols placed residents at risk for poor personal hygiene and potential skin infections.
Failure to Prevent Elopement of Resident with Dementia
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision to prevent accidents for a resident with a history of elopement. Resident #3, who had diagnoses including dementia, was admitted without a proper assessment of her elopement risk. The facility did not have a secure unit or a wander guard system and would not have accepted her had they known about her history of elopement. On the day following her admission, Resident #3 eloped from the facility, triggering an alarm that led to staff intervention to bring her back safely. The incident revealed that the facility's admission process did not capture critical information about Resident #3's elopement history, which was known to her family but not documented in the admission paperwork. Interviews with various staff members, including the admissions coordinator, DON, and social worker, confirmed that they were unaware of Resident #3's elopement history. The admission assessment was also inaccurately completed, marking Resident #3 as not physically able to leave the building on her own, which was incorrect. The facility's policy did not explicitly state that residents with a history of elopement would not be accepted, leading to a significant oversight in Resident #3's case.
Failure to Monitor Adverse Side Effects of Lorazepam
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic drugs and that the resident was consistently and adequately monitored for adverse side effects of Lorazepam. Resident #1, who had multiple diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, was prescribed Lorazepam for anxiety. The medication orders for Lorazepam were changed multiple times between 4/1/24 and 4/18/24, but the monitoring for antianxiety side effects was not consistently documented during this period. Specifically, there were gaps in the documentation of side effects monitoring on the MAR and in the nursing progress notes, particularly from 4/11/24 to 4/19/24. This lack of consistent monitoring could have led to the resident experiencing adverse effects without timely intervention. Interviews with the nursing staff and the ADON revealed that they were aware of the importance of monitoring but failed to document it consistently. The DON acknowledged the lapse in monitoring and documentation, stating that there was no specific system in place to ensure consistent monitoring of psychotropic medications prior to 4/19/24. A facility policy and procedure regarding the monitoring of residents on psychotropic medications was requested but not received.
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 140 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 Tyler
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Briarcliff Health Center | 0.2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Reunion Plaza Healthcare & Rehabilitation | 1.3 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Providence Park Rehabilitation And Skilled Nursing | 2.2 mi | — | 1 | 1 |
| Meadow Lake Health Center | 2.4 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| The Heights Of Tyler | 2.6 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Avir At Azalea Heights.
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.