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 Sweetwater Healthcare Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to provide accessible information on filing grievances, affecting 7 residents who were unaware of the process, including how to file anonymously. Interviews revealed that grievance forms were not available without staff assistance, and there was no visible posting of the grievance procedure. The ADM acknowledged the absence of a grievance posting and a process for anonymous grievances.
The facility failed to provide a private space for Resident Council meetings, holding them in a dining room with open doorways and frequent staff interruptions, making it difficult for residents to voice grievances privately. Interviews revealed that the dining room was consistently used despite the lack of privacy, contrary to facility policy.
The facility failed to provide palatable and properly prepared meals across three food forms, as observed during a meal service. Residents reported dissatisfaction with the taste and seasoning of the food, describing it as bland. The Dietary Manager admitted to not consistently tasting the food before serving, despite being trained to do so. The facility's grievance log showed no complaints about food palatability, and alternate food options were available for residents.
The facility failed to maintain proper kitchen sanitation and food storage standards, as observed during a survey. Freezer handles were found unclean, and several food items in the refrigerator and freezer were not properly sealed. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the oversight, and both the DM and ADM confirmed that all dietary staff were trained in these areas. Facility policies emphasized the importance of maintaining clean and sanitary conditions to prevent foodborne illness.
A facility reported a medication error rate of 7.69% due to two errors involving two residents. An LPN administered Midodrine to a resident despite blood pressure readings that required the medication to be held, and gave another resident two Tylenol tablets instead of one. The errors were identified during a medication pass observation, and the LPN acknowledged the mistakes, despite regular training and audits in place.
A resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions due to a feeding tube did not receive proper infection control measures from two CNAs who failed to wear PPE during care activities. Despite clear signage and facility policy, the CNAs did not adhere to the required precautions, and the facility administration was unaware of this non-compliance until the survey.
Lack of Accessible Grievance Process for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that information on how to file a grievance or complaint was available to residents, affecting 7 out of 7 confidential residents reviewed for grievances. During confidential interviews, these residents reported not knowing about the grievance process, where to obtain or submit a grievance form, or that they could file a grievance anonymously. They were unaware of who their grievance officer was, and the grievance procedure had not been discussed in Resident Council or upon admission. Observations confirmed the absence of visible grievance forms or postings with instructions on filing grievances in areas accessible to residents. Interviews with the Assistant Director (AD) and Administrator (ADM) revealed that grievance forms were not readily accessible to residents without staff assistance. The AD stated that she completed grievance forms for residents when complaints were made during Resident Council meetings, primarily concerning missing laundry. The ADM confirmed that grievance forms were filled out by staff and submitted to the relevant department manager for resolution, but there was no process for residents to file anonymous grievances. The ADM acknowledged the lack of a grievance posting in the facility and the absence of a location for residents to obtain grievance forms independently.
Lack of Privacy for Resident Council Meetings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a private space for Resident Council meetings, which compromised the residents' ability to voice their grievances in private. During a survey, it was observed that the Resident Council meeting was held in the dining room, which had two open doorways without closures, allowing staff to walk through during the meeting. This setting made it difficult for residents to hear each other due to noise from the hallway and distractions from staff entering the area. Residents expressed that the dining room was always used for these meetings, and there was no alternative private area available. Interviews with the Activities Director (AD) and the Administrator (ADM) revealed that the dining room had been the consistent location for Resident Council meetings, despite the lack of privacy. The AD acknowledged the issue but had not considered alternative locations, while the ADM recognized the lack of privacy and the distractions caused by staff movement and hallway noise. The facility's policy stated that Resident Council meetings should be held in a private space, but this was not adhered to, as evidenced by the observations and interviews conducted during the survey.
Deficiency in Food Palatability and Temperature
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that food provided to residents was palatable, attractive, and served at a safe and appetizing temperature. This deficiency was observed during a meal service where three different food forms (Regular, Mechanical Soft, and Pureed) were evaluated. During the meal observation, issues were noted with the palatability of the food, particularly with the white rice being described as sticky, thick, and bland, and the biscuits being dry and overcooked. These observations were corroborated by resident interviews, where four out of twelve residents expressed dissatisfaction with the taste and seasoning of the food, describing it as bland and lacking flavor. The Dietary Manager (DM) admitted to not consistently tasting the food before serving it to residents and acknowledged that the food served during the observed meal was not tasted beforehand. The DM also mentioned that while she had been trained on seasoning and tasting food, she did not always follow this practice. The Assistant Dietary Manager (ADM) confirmed that the DM was responsible for food tasting and stated that the dietary staff had been trained on food palatability. Despite these issues, the facility's grievance log showed no recorded complaints about food palatability, and the ADM noted that alternate food options were available if residents were dissatisfied with their meals.
Deficiency in Kitchen Sanitation and Food Storage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain proper food storage and cleanliness standards in the kitchen, as observed during a survey. Specifically, the freezer handles were found to have dry, sticky substances, indicating they had not been cleaned as required. Additionally, several food items in the refrigerator and freezer, including a box of biscuits, a bag of turkey sandwich meat, a gallon-sized bag of shredded cheese, and a bag of corn tortillas, were not properly sealed and had been opened for several days. These observations were made during a kitchen tour, and the Dietary Manager (DM) acknowledged that the freezer handles had not been cleaned that day and that food should be stored fully sealed. Interviews with the DM and the Assistant Dietary Manager (ADM) revealed that the DM was primarily responsible for ensuring proper food storage and kitchen cleanliness, although all dietary staff were trained and expected to maintain these standards. The DM admitted to providing reminders to staff about food storage and cleanliness every few days. The ADM expressed uncertainty about why these issues occurred, given the training provided to staff. The facility's policies from 2018 outlined the need for proper food storage and kitchen sanitation to prevent foodborne illness, emphasizing the importance of clean and sanitary conditions in refrigerators, freezers, and other kitchen areas.
Medication Administration Errors Lead to High Error Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, resulting in a rate of 7.69% due to two errors out of 26 opportunities. These errors involved two residents during medication administration. The first error occurred when LVN A administered Midodrine to a resident with hypotension, despite the resident's blood pressure being outside the parameters specified in the physician's order. The resident's blood pressure was 124/88, which required the medication to be held, but LVN A proceeded with the administration. The second error involved another resident who was prescribed Tylenol Extra Strength for pain management. LVN A administered two tablets of Tylenol 500 mg instead of the one tablet as per the physician's order. This error was identified during a medication administration observation, where LVN A acknowledged the mistake and expressed uncertainty about why the error occurred, despite being experienced in medication administration. Interviews with LVN A, the Administrator, and the Director of Nursing revealed that the facility had protocols in place for medication administration, including regular training and audits by the Corporate Nurse and Pharmacy Consultant. However, the errors were attributed to lapses in following these protocols, as LVN A did not adhere to the physician's orders during the medication pass. Both residents were monitored for adverse reactions following the errors, and no adverse effects were reported.
Failure to Adhere to Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program, as evidenced by the actions of two CNAs who did not adhere to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) while providing care to a resident. The resident, a female with multiple diagnoses including dysphagia, major depressive disorder, and reduced mobility, was on EBP due to having a feeding tube. Despite signage indicating the need for PPE, the CNAs did not wear gowns and gloves during a transfer and clothing change. Interviews with the CNAs revealed a lack of compliance with EBP protocols. CNA A admitted to not wearing PPE because she did not think it was necessary and could not recall recent training on EBP. CNA B acknowledged the requirement for PPE during care activities and attributed the oversight to the presence of surveyors, indicating a lapse in adherence to infection control measures. The facility's administration, including the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON), were unaware of the non-compliance prior to the survey. The DON was responsible for staff training on EBP, and monitoring was conducted through rounds. The facility's policy on EBP required PPE for high-contact activities, but this was not followed, leading to a deficiency in infection control practices.
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 31 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 Sweetwater
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sterling Hills Rehabilitation And Healthcare Cente | 1.7 mi | — | 5 | 0 |
| Merkel Nursing Center | 21.6 mi | — | 26 | 4 |
| Mitchell County Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 29.7 mi | — | 9 | 0 |
| Homeplace Manor Healthcare Center | 31.5 mi | — | 24 | 0 |
| Avir At Snyder | 33 mi | — | 12 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Sweetwater 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.