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 Clairidge House during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to designate a Director of Food and Nutrition Services, leaving the dietary department without proper supervision. Cook1, who was previously the interim Director, did not meet the required qualifications, and recruitment efforts for a Certified Dietary Manager were unsuccessful. The Registered Dietitian provided limited clinical services and did not inspect the kitchen for sanitation issues, increasing the risk of foodborne illness for all 41 residents.
The facility failed to maintain the required sanitizer level in the low temperature dishwasher, as observed when a dietary aid tested the chlorine level and found it to be zero ppm. Despite this, the aid continued to wash dishes, violating the facility's policy that mandates a chlorine level between 50 ppm and 100 ppm. The deficiency had the potential to cause foodborne illness or infections among all 41 residents.
The facility failed to ensure a clean and homelike environment, with observations of unsanitary conditions in resident bathrooms, including soiled call cords, a strong urine odor, and a loose toilet seat. These issues affected several residents, some of whom were cognitively impaired or required assistance with toileting. The facility's housekeeping policies were not followed, contributing to these deficiencies.
A facility failed to document a resident's feeding tube in the MDS assessments, despite the resident having a gastrostomy status since admission. The MDS Coordinator and DON confirmed the oversight, acknowledging that the feeding tube should have been coded in the assessments, as per the RAI manual.
A facility failed to obtain a physician's order for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter, diagnosed with neurogenic bladder. The care plan noted the presence of a Foley catheter, but the physician's orders lacked details such as catheter type, size, and maintenance instructions. Interviews with staff confirmed the absence of necessary orders, violating the facility's catheter management policy.
A facility failed to ensure a resident with a gastrostomy tube had a physician's order for tube care. Despite the resident's medical history of severe protein malnutrition and dysphagia, the MAR indicated daily flushing of the tube without a documented physician's order. Staff interviews confirmed the absence of the necessary order, contrary to facility policy.
A resident with diabetes did not receive his medication as prescribed, as a pill was left in a cup on his bedside table. The resident confirmed he was not awakened to take his medication, and no assessment for self-administration was conducted. The DON stated that medication should not be left in a resident's room and must be administered by a nurse.
A facility failed to secure controlled substances under double lock and ensure proper documentation, leading to potential drug diversion. An LPN did not sign the controlled substances she administered, assuming the previous shift nurse had forgotten. The DON was not informed of the missing signatures, and the Master Control Substance record had multiple omissions. Additionally, an RN left a refrigerator containing Ativan unlocked, violating the facility's policy.
A facility failed to prepare and educate staff for the care of a resident with a chemotherapy infusion pump. The resident, with a history of hepatitis C, HIV, and rectal cancer, returned from a clinic with the pump, but nursing notes lacked documentation of its presence. Staff interviews revealed they were not trained on managing the pump or chemotherapy drugs, and the facility assessment did not cover such care. The physician's order also lacked instructions for handling hazardous material, posing potential risks to residents and staff.
Failure to Designate Director of Food and Nutrition Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to designate a Director of Food and Nutrition Services, which is a requirement for ensuring that food is prepared, stored, and served in a sanitary manner. During an initial tour of the dietary department, it was discovered that there was no current Dietary Manager or Director of Food Services. Cook1 and Dietary Aid1 confirmed the absence of a supervisor, noting that a previously hired Director had quit, leaving the position vacant. The Corporate Clinical Consultant and the Administrator acknowledged the lack of a designated Director and mentioned ongoing recruitment challenges. Cook1, who was previously designated as the interim Director, did not meet the qualifications required for the role and had discontinued a relevant course. The Registered Dietitian (RD) provided clinical nutrition services but did not inspect the kitchen for sanitation issues, visiting the facility only once a week and sometimes virtually. The RD's limited hours and focus on clinical services left a gap in oversight for the dietary department's operations. The facility's job description for the Food Service Manager requires a Certified Dietary Manager, a qualification that Cook1 did not possess. This deficiency had the potential to affect all 41 residents in the facility by increasing the risk of foodborne illness due to inadequate supervision and management of food services.
Dishwasher Sanitizer Level Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the sanitizer level in the low temperature dishwasher at the required level to ensure proper sanitation of dishes. On the morning of October 15, 2024, a Dietary Aid (DA1) checked the chlorine sanitizer level using a test strip, which did not change color, indicating a zero parts per million (ppm) level. Despite this, DA1 proceeded to wash breakfast dishes without the necessary sanitizer level. Later that day, during lunch, DA1 was observed running soiled plates through the dishwasher and again tested the sanitizer level, which remained at zero ppm. DA1 continued to use the dishwasher despite the inadequate sanitizer level. The facility's policy, titled 'Dish Machine - Low Temperature/Chemical Status Procedure,' requires the chlorine level to be between 50 ppm and 100 ppm. The policy also mandates that if the chlorine level is not within acceptable limits, the problem should be fixed immediately, and the dish machine should not be used until the issue is resolved. The Administrator was informed of the deficiency and verified the zero ppm level, instructing the dietary staff to cease using the dishwasher until the problem was addressed. The failure to maintain the appropriate sanitizer level had the potential to result in foodborne illness or the spread of infections among all 41 residents in the facility.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary and Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary, and homelike environment for its residents, as evidenced by multiple observations of unsanitary conditions in resident bathrooms. In the shared bathroom of two residents, an unlabeled urinal was repeatedly found on the floor, and the call light cord was soiled with a brown substance. Additionally, a soiled incontinence brief was observed on the bathroom floor. One resident was cognitively intact and independent with toileting, while the other required moderate assistance and was frequently incontinent. These conditions were verified by the Social Service Director and the Maintenance Director. In another shared bathroom, a strong smell of urine was present, the floor was sticky, and a brown smear was noted on the wall. The call cord was also soiled. Both residents using this bathroom were capable of independent bathroom use, although one was severely cognitively impaired and required supervision for toileting. Furthermore, a resident reported a loose toilet seat and a soiled privacy curtain in her previous room, which were not addressed before another resident moved in. The facility's housekeeping policies required daily cleaning and reporting of maintenance issues, but these were not adhered to, leading to the observed deficiencies.
Inaccurate MDS Assessment Due to Omission of Feeding Tube Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one resident, who was identified as having a feeding tube since admission. The resident's medical records indicated a diagnosis of gastrostomy status, yet the MDS assessments conducted on three separate occasions did not document the presence of the feeding tube in Section K. This oversight was confirmed during interviews with the MDS Coordinator and the Director of Nursing (DON), both of whom acknowledged that the feeding tube should have been coded in the MDS assessments. The MDS Coordinator admitted that the feeding tube had been present since the resident's admission, although the resident did not receive nourishment through it. Despite this, the RAI manual, which was used to complete the MDS forms, clearly defines the need to document the presence of any feeding tube. The failure to accurately code the MDS assessments could lead to inaccurate assessment and care planning for the resident, as the feeding tube was not documented as required.
Lack of Physician's Order for Indwelling Urinary Catheter
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter had a physician's order for its use. This deficiency was identified for a resident diagnosed with neurogenic bladder, who was observed with urinary catheter tubing visible from the bottom of his pant leg, connected to a urinary collection bag. The resident's care plan noted the presence of a Foley catheter due to a spinal cord injury and neurogenic bladder, with instructions to change the catheter as needed and maintain equipment patency. However, the physician's orders lacked specific details such as the type of catheter, diameter size, balloon size, frequency of changing the catheter, and interventions to maintain patency. Interviews with the MDS Coordinator and the Director of Nursing confirmed the absence of a physician's order for the indwelling urinary catheter and the necessary interventions for care by the nursing staff. The facility's policy on catheter management requires a medically justified order for the use of an indwelling catheter, which was not present in this case. The deficiency was further supported by a review of a clinical nursing textbook, which emphasizes the need to review healthcare provider orders after identifying a resident.
Lack of Physician's Order for Feeding Tube Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident with a gastrostomy tube had a physician's order for the care and management of the feeding tube. The resident, identified as having a medical diagnosis of gastrostomy status and a history of severe protein malnutrition, was documented in the care plan as having an alteration in nutrition and dysphagia due to a failed swallow study. Despite these conditions, the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June and October 2024 indicated an intervention to flush the feeding tube with 120 milliliters of water daily, yet there was no corresponding physician's order documented in the electronic medical record. Interviews with facility staff, including a registered nurse and the Director of Nursing, confirmed the absence of a physician's order for the daily flushing of the feeding tube. The registered nurse acknowledged that the evening shift performed the flush as listed on the MAR, and the Director of Nursing confirmed that there should have been an order for this procedure. The facility's policy on gastric feeding tubes also emphasized the need for consistency with physician's orders, highlighting the deficiency in adhering to established protocols.
Medication Administration Failure
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident, identified as R41, received his medication as prescribed. During an observation, a pill was found in a medication cup on R41's bedside table, indicating that the medication had not been administered by the nurse. R41 confirmed that he had not been awakened by the night shift nurse to receive his medication and had not been given any medication earlier that morning. This oversight was contrary to the facility's policy, which requires that drugs be administered by the nurse until the care planning team assesses the resident's ability to self-administer medication. R41, who was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of diabetes, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Despite this, there was no assessment conducted for R41's ability to self-administer medication, as noted in the electronic medical record. The Director of Nursing confirmed that it was not acceptable for a nurse to leave medication in a resident's room and emphasized that the nurse should witness the resident taking the medication before signing the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The failure to administer the medication as required had the potential to place the resident at risk for health decline.
Controlled Substances Not Properly Secured and Documented
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that controlled substances were properly secured and documented, leading to potential drug diversion. The policy required controlled substances to be double-locked and counted by two nurses at each shift change, with both nurses signing the individual controlled substances count sheets and the Master Controlled Substance record. However, the review of the controlled substance count sheets revealed missing signatures for several dates, indicating that the counts were not verified. Additionally, the Master Control Substance record had multiple blanks where signatures and the number of cards should have been indicated. This issue affected three residents, as their individual count sheets for narcotics were missing the administering nurse's signature, although the Medication Administration Records (MARs) showed that the narcotics were administered. During an interview, an LPN admitted to not signing the controlled substances she had administered and assumed that the previous shift nurse had forgotten to sign them out. The LPN did not verify this by checking the MAR or notify the DON of the discrepancy. The DON confirmed that she was not informed about the missing signatures and acknowledged that an incorrect count could indicate drug diversion. The DON also noted that the Master Control Substance record should have been signed by the nurses coming on and going off duty, but there were multiple omissions of signatures. Additionally, an observation revealed that the medication room's refrigerator, which contained Ativan, was not double-locked as required by the facility's policy. An RN admitted to forgetting to lock the refrigerator after accessing it earlier in the shift. The DON and the Administrator confirmed that the medication room and refrigerator should be under double lock, and the failure to do so was against their policy.
Deficiency in Staff Training for Chemotherapy Infusion Pump
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that staff were adequately prepared and educated to care for a resident with a portable infusion pump delivering chemotherapy drugs through a surgically implanted port. This deficiency was identified through staff interviews, record reviews, and document reviews. The resident, who had a medical history including chronic viral hepatitis C, HIV disease, and a new rectal cancer diagnosis, returned from a clinic appointment with an infusion pump. However, the nursing progress notes lacked documentation of the presence of the pump until several days later, and there was no evidence that staff were informed or trained on how to manage the pump or the chemotherapy drugs. Interviews with staff, including an LPN and the DON, revealed that they were not educated about the chemotherapy drug infusion or the necessary precautions. The Corporate Clinical Consultant confirmed that the staff had not been educated prior to the resident's return with the pump, and the facility assessment did not include provisions for caring for residents receiving on-site chemotherapy. The physician's order also lacked instructions for handling hazardous material in the event of a leak or spill. This lack of preparation and education posed potential harm and injury risks to both residents and staff.
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 213 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 12 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 Kenosha
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avina Of Kenosha | 1.8 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Waters Edge Health And Rehabilitation Center | 1.8 mi | — | 31 | 3 |
| Sheridan Health And Rehabilitation Center | 1.9 mi | — | 22 | 0 |
| Brookside Care Center | 2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Avina On 32nd | 2.4 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Clairidge House.
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.