Hawthorne Inn of Danville: Medical Record Failures - IL
The resident, identified only as R1 in federal inspection records, had been hospitalized and undergone a two-vessel coronary artery bypass graft on June 5, 2025. She arrived at Hawthorne Inn on July 10, five weeks after surgery. A nurse practitioner's progress note from the following day documented that R1 had developed a right femoral arterial sheath hematoma during her hospital stay, a known complication of the heart catheterization procedure that preceded her bypass. Her chest incision, her left thigh incision from the vein graft site, and her right groin were all healing.
The nursing home's own records told a different story, or rather, told almost no story at all.
The admission nursing note from July 10 contained no assessment of R1's skin condition. No bruising documented. No incisions noted. The facility's admission observation form from the same date recorded that R1 had no alterations in her skin whatsoever. For the next six days, nothing in R1's nursing notes mentioned bruising of any kind.
On July 16, a registered nurse completed a skin assessment. It noted, briefly: "Incisions & bruising. No new areas of concern." It did not say where the bruising was located.
That was the entirety of what the medical record captured about a woman who had arrived from a hospital with documented post-surgical bruising to her hip or rib area.
When federal inspectors arrived at the facility on August 13 and began asking questions, the registered nurse who had written the July 16 skin assessment, identified as V10, explained that she had not considered the bruising a new issue because the hospital had told her about it when R1 was admitted. She said she received a verbal report from the hospital on the day R1 arrived. She believed the bruising was already accounted for.
It was not in the record. V10 acknowledged that.
The Director of Nursing, identified as V2, confirmed to inspectors that R1's admission assessments, skin assessments, and nursing notes did not document that R1 arrived with incisions or bruising. V2 said she had requested provider progress notes from the nurse practitioner, V29, to obtain documentation that R1 had hip bruising on admission.
Those notes arrived by fax at 8:56 on the morning of August 13, the same morning inspectors were on site asking about them.
The nurse practitioner's progress note, dated July 11, had existed for more than a month. It described R1's hematoma, her incisions, their healing status. It had not been uploaded into R1's electronic medical record at the facility. The facility's own job description for medical records staff, dated May 2013, lists uploading documentation into the resident's electronic medical record and conducting audits to catch exactly this kind of discrepancy as core responsibilities of the role.
Federal inspectors cited the facility for failing to ensure medical records are complete and accurate, rating the level of harm as minimal harm or potential for actual harm. The violation affected one of four residents reviewed for injuries during the inspection.
The gap between what the nurses knew verbally and what the record showed is the problem inspectors identified. A verbal report from a hospital does not become part of a medical record. If R1's condition had changed, if the bruising had worsened or spread, if a new provider had taken over her care without access to that verbal handoff, the written record would have offered no baseline. It would have shown a woman who arrived with perfect skin and developed bruising at some unspecified point, in some unspecified location, for reasons the chart did not explain.
R1 recovered from her bypass surgery. The inspection report does not say otherwise. But the record of her first weeks at Hawthorne Inn remains what it was: incomplete, and corrected only after inspectors came asking.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Hawthorne Inn of Danville from 2025-08-13 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 22, 2026 · Our methodology
HAWTHORNE INN OF DANVILLE in DANVILLE, IL was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 13, 2025.
She arrived at Hawthorne Inn on July 10, five weeks after surgery.
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.