Renaissance At The Terraces
26475 South Tamiami Trail, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 · Non profit - Corporation · 40 certified beds · (239) 949-7555 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (16% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 42.3% | 8.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.8% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.7% | 0.7% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.9% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 0.0% | 14.4% | 18.9% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.2% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.0% | 10.5% | 21.2% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.8% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.2% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.2% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.00 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.29 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
65.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 349 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 84.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 190 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 1.00 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 97% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 65.0%CMS range 60.9–68.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 7.3–12.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 84.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 86.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 67.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 99.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 98.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.8–9.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.99 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 40 beds and averages 31.9 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.94 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.50 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.66 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.16 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.69 to 1.03 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 16% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-02-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to properly store raw meat to prevent cross contamination of ready to eat food in the walk-in refrigerator of the facility.The findings included:On 2/2/26 at 10:30 a.m., during a tour of the kitchen, Life Safety Code observation of the walk-in refrigerator revealed a pan containing raw beef tenderloin stored over cooked meat and raw mushrooms. The Director of dining verified that the raw meat was stored over ready to eat food.On 2/2/26 at 10:54 a.m., in an interview the Director of dining said the walk-in cooler went out a few nights prior. They moved all the food to the walk-in refrigerator. He said it had been challenging to get everything in the refrigerator and they missed the raw meat stored over the cooked meat and mushrooms. He said normally they kept meat on one side and dairy on the other. The Director of dining verified that raw meat should not be stored over ready to eat food, including vegetables. He said they were working on getting a quote on getting the walk-in cooler fixed. He said the Executive Chef was in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-07-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedure and staff interviews, the facility failed to prepare, and store food in a sanitary manner by failing to cover and date food in 1 walk-in dairy refrigerator and 1 refrigerator and failed to clean surfaces on food preparation equipment including ovens and ice machine to prevent potential contamination. Additionally, the facility did not ensure staff wear hair restraints during preparation of food. The lack of sanitation in the kitchen had the potential to affect all residents consuming an oral diet. The findings included: 1. On 7/1/24 at 9:09 a.m., during an initial observation of the kitchen in the presence of the Director of Food and Beverages, the following was observed: The outside of the ice machine had a layer of dust with debris on the top of the machine. There was a brown colored substance on the outside top of the machine. Observation of the ice machine lid was dusty and grimy with brown substance and debris. The inside of the ice machine where…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-03 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure 2 (Residents #22 and #30) of 19 residents with bed rails were assessed for alternative interventions prior to the use of the bed rails. The findings included: The facility policy Proper Use of Bed Rails, effective 10/20/22 documented, It is the policy of the Renaissance two utilize a person-centered approach when determining the use of bed rails. Appropriate alternative approaches are attempted prior to installing or using bed rails. Alternatives include but are not limited to: Roll guards, foam bumpers, lowering the bed, and concave mattresses. Alternatives that are attempted should be appropriate for the resident, safe and address the medical conditions, symptoms or behavioral patterns for which a bed rail was considered. If no appropriate alternatives are identified the medical record should include evidence of the following purpose for which the bed rail was intended…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-05-18 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to show effective coordination to ensure 1 resident (#94) of 2 residents reviewed received podiatry services to maintain good foot health for identified foot concerns. The findings included: Review of the facility policy on Foot Care effective 10/17/22: It is the policy (of the facility) to ensure residents receive care and treatment to maintain good foot health. 1b. If necessary, the facility will assist the resident in making appointments with a qualified person, arranging for transportation to and from such appointments. 2b. A comprehensive assessment process is used for identifying conditions that increase the risk for impaired skin integrity of the foot. 2c. The comprehensive assessment will include an assessment of the feet for disorders which may require treatment including but not limited to corns, neuromas, calluses, bunions, hammertoes, heel spurs, and nail disorders. 3aiii. Referrals to podiatrists will be made when appropriate. Review of the clinical record for Resident #94 revealed an admission date…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-05-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper cleaning of the CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) machine to prevent respiratory infections for 1 (Resident #93) of 1 resident requiring the use of the CPAP machine. The findings included: The facility's policy for CPAP machine with an effective date of 5/18/23 noted, It is the policy of the facility to clean CPAP equipment in accordance with current Centers for Disease Control guidelines and manufacturer recommendations in order to prevent the occurrence or spread of infection . Respiratory therapy equipment can become colonized with infectious organisms and serve as a source of respiratory infections . Empty the (water) chamber completely after each use and wipe dry . Clean mask and tubing daily after use, dry well. Cover with plastic bag or completely enclosed in machine storage when not in use. Review of the clinical record for Resident #93 revealed an admission date of 5/10/23. Diagnoses included unspecified sleep apnea (sleep disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-09-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, review of facility policies and procedures, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain grooming and hygiene for 2 (Resident #3 and Resident #180) of 3 dependent residents reviewed for assistance with activities of daily living. This has the potential to cause psychological harm to the resident. The findings included: A review of the facility policy Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting (revised 11/28/16), specified, Residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene .Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care, including appropriate support and assistance with: hygiene (bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care). 1. A review of Resident #3' s clinical record revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-09-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, review of policies and procedures, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to provide reasonable interventions and adequate monitoring to meet the needs of 1 (Resident #180) of 1 sampled resident requiring continuous use of oxygen. The findings included: The facility policy Oxygen Administration (revised 10/2010) documented, The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration . Before administering oxygen, and while the resident is receiving oxygen therapy, assess for the following: 1. Signs or symptoms of cyanosis (blue tone to the skin and mucous membranes). 2. Signs or symptoms of hypoxia (rapid breathing, rapid pulse, restlessness, confusion). 3. Signs or symptoms of oxygen toxicity (difficulty breathing, slow or shallow rate of breathing). Review of the clinical record showed Resident #180 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and dependence on supplemental oxygen. The admission…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-09-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure all medications were locked and secured when not in sight and failed to date opened medications to prevent expired medications from being administered to residents in 1 (3rd floor medication cart) of 2 medication carts. This had the potential for unsecured and expired medications to create hazardous health consequences for residents in the facility. The findings included: The facility policy Storage of Medications (revised 4/2007) specified, The facility shall store all drugs biologicals in a safe, secure and orderly manner . The facility shall not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals . Compartments (including carts, drawers, and boxes) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use. 1. On 9/20/21 at 9:35 a.m., during observation the 3rd floor medication cart with Registered Nurse (RN) Staff H the following was found: A Budes/Formot AER 80-4.5 inhaler (medication inhaled to treat respiratory symptoms) for Resident #180 with directions to discard the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-09-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to store, label, food products in walk in refrigerator and freezer in a safe and sanitary manner to prevent potential cross contamination. The facility failed to discard expired food items in the walk-in refrigerator. The findings included: The Santa Fe Senior living Food Storage and Handling Policies and Procedures created March 2020 read, Policy It is the policy of the Dining services team (managers and associates) to cover, label, date, and store all foods in a safe storage area: refrigerator, freezer, or dry storage. Purpose The purpose is to prevent food borne illness(es). Procedures All cooked, pre-packaged open container, protein-based salads, desserts, and canned fruits are labeled, dated, and accurately covered. Dating System for Opened Foods Always securely cover the food item(s). Using a label, complete the following information using the referenced guide. Clearly write the item mane/contents, made on date, use by date, and initials of the person who prepared the label. On 9/20/21 at 9:20 a.m., during…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ACTS RETIREMENT-LIFE COMMUNITIES — 27 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 4.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 4.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.9 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 26 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BONITA SPRINGS RETIREMENT VILLAGE INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 11/07/2013 |
| ACTS ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| ACTS ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| ACTS COMMUNITIES OF MARYLAND, INC. | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| ACTS LEGACY FOUNDATION, INC. | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| ACTS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/25/2025 |
| ACTS RETIREMENT SERVICES, INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| ACTS RETIREMENT-LIFE COMMUNITIES INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| ACTS RETIREMENT-LIFE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/25/2025 |
| ACTS SIGNATURE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| MEASE LIFE INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| CHRISTIANSEN, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| GERNER, ELRIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| GLYNN, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| GRANT, GERALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| MORELAND, DAVE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| WEISS, RITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| AHERN, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| FOX, GLENN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| GRANT, JONATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| VALDIVIA, PEGGY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| UMB BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Organization | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| BAKER TILLY ADVISORY GROUP LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/03/2025 |
| BAKER TILLY US LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/05/2024 |
| GRAY, DAVID | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| SIPRA, SAJID | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 49 rows in the source record cover these 26 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
14 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.0M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in FL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Florida Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 106104. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-03, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.