Chateau Nursing & Rehab: Delayed Hip X-Ray After Fall - IL
The resident, identified in inspection records only as R1, was found on the floor in front of his wheelchair at 5:30 AM. He had a skin tear on his left elbow. Staff cleaned and dressed the wound, notified his wife, and alerted the nurse practitioner. When the nurse practitioner came to assess him later that morning, R1 refused to let her move his leg because of the pain in his left hip. She ordered a STAT X-ray.
What happened next is where the accounts begin to diverge.
The nurse practitioner, identified as V6, told inspectors she instructed the floor nurse to call the X-ray company and that a STAT order meant within four hours. The Director of Nursing agreed: STAT means four hours.
The registered nurse assigned to R1 that day, V8, worked a double shift from 6:30 AM to 11 PM. She told inspectors she received the order from V6 and entered it — but entered it as a regular X-ray, not a STAT. After a stand-up meeting, she said V6 came back to her and told her to change it to STAT. V8 said she then called the X-ray company and told them it was urgent.
The physician order record tells a different story. Two separate X-ray orders appear in R1's chart for that day, entered at 10:47 AM and 1:05 PM. Neither is marked STAT. Both say "one time only."
The X-ray company did not send a technician that day. A progress note from the following morning, February 18, shows a nurse calling the company to ask for an estimated arrival time. The company said a technician had been assigned and would be out that morning. No exact time was available. The X-ray was completed later that morning. Results came back at 9:45 AM on February 18.
The Assistant Director of Nursing, V3, told inspectors she remembered the situation because R1's daughter had called her directly. The daughter wanted to know why the X-ray hadn't been done until the next morning. V3 said she didn't have a good answer. "I remember R1's daughter calling me and asking me about the fall and she asked me why it took until the next morning to do the X-ray," she told inspectors.
The inspection report does not say what treatment R1 received after the fracture was confirmed, or what the delay meant for his recovery. It does not say whether he was in pain through the night of February 17. It does not describe what a comminuted intertrochanteric fracture — a break in which the bone shatters into multiple fragments at the upper femur — means for a nursing home resident's rehabilitation or long-term mobility.
What the record does show is a man who told staff his hip hurt, who refused a range-of-motion exam because of that pain, who had a nurse practitioner concerned enough to use the word STAT, and who waited more than twenty-four hours for an X-ray that revealed exactly what the pain suggested.
His daughter had already figured that out before the results came back. She called the facility the next day asking why it had taken so long. The Assistant Director of Nursing remembered the call.
Federal inspectors cited the facility for failing to ensure timely diagnostic services. The violation was rated at the lower end of the harm scale. R1's daughter had been asking about it for two months before inspectors arrived.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Chateau Nrsg & Rehab Center from 2026-04-27 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Download the official CMS inspection PDF from Medicare.gov
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: September 19, 2026 · Our methodology
CHATEAU NRSG & REHAB CENTER in WILLOWBROOK, IL was cited for violations during a health inspection on April 27, 2026.
The resident, identified in inspection records only as R1, was found on the floor in front of his wheelchair at 5:30 AM.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.