Heartland Nursing & Rehab Center
3600 Old Boynton Road, Boynton Beach, FL 33436 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (561) 736-9992 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 federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 4 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 | 7.6% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.2% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better 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 | 4.8% | 2.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.5% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.3% | 14.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.6% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.8% | 10.5% | 21.2% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.6% | 8.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.2% | 94.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 41.8% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.3% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.36 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.54 | 1.15 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
29.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 53 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.1% 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 43 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 29.9%CMS range 21.0–38.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.0%CMS range 8.6–19.4 | 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 | 72.1% | 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 | 53.5% | 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 | 74.4% | 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 | 97.7% | 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 | 97.4% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 3.5–14.0 | 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 120 beds and averages 113.6 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.72 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.86 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 is below 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 3.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.81 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.83 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
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.
15 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-11 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor, implement and obtain treatment services from the physician in a timely manner for an identified trauma wound for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #1). The findings included:Record review revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission from 04/09/25 -1/30/26. A comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required substantial/maximum assist with activities of living. Record review revealed Resident #1 was care planned on 05/23/25 for potential for impairment to skin integrity related to episodes of incontinence, cognitive impairment. Interventions included to monitor/document location, size and treatment of skin injury, report abnormalities, failure to heal, signs/symptoms of infection, maceration etc. to MD (Medical Doctor). The record documented Resident #1 was care planned on 01/03/26 for an alteration in musculoskeletal status related to fracture of 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 · E2025-03-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for 5 of 28 sampled residents, as evidenced by the failure to timely wash the resident's hair for Resident #53 and #17, failure to provide timely incontinence care for Resident #55 and #79, and failure to provide nail care for Resident #80. The findings included: 1.) Review of the record revealed that Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of unspecified Dementia with other behavioral disturbances. Review of the current Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #53 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0, on a 0 to 15 scale, indicating the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the current care plan initiated on 01/23/25 documented Resident #53 had an ADL deficit related to weakness and decreased functional mobility due to multiple chronic diseases. The goal was will be clean, dressed, and well-groomed…
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 · E2025-03-13 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
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 observations, interview, policy, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide food in a form to meet the individual needs of residents for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #43, Resident #57) reviewed for pureed texture diets. This had the potential to affect 28 residents who were on pureed texture diets. The findings included: A review of the facility's policy for pureed diets, documented that it was used for patients with swallowing and chewing difficulties. It specified that all foods are smooth in texture and free from whole, minced or ground pieces. The policy stated that the pureed diet follows the recommendations for the Level 1 Dysphagia Pureed Diet of the National Dysphagia Diet. 1. During an observation on 03/10/25 at 5:37 PM, Resident #43 was served his dinner. His meal ticket said that he was on a Puree texture diet. The pureed bread was lumpy. Photographic evidence obtained. Record review revealed Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Sarcopenia,…
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 · E2025-03-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 policy review, observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow an infection control program to help prevent infections for 5 of 7 sampled residents as evidenced by the failure to ensure physician orders for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for Resident #2, #32, and #46, failure to properly maintain the indwelling urinary catheter for Resident #32, and failure to ensure proper hand hygiene and don gloves during eye drop administration for Resident #87. The facility also failed to maintain the laundry area in a manner to prevent the spread of infection. The findings included: 1) Review of the record revealed Resident #2 and #46 had pressure ulcers, and Resident #32 had an indwelling urinary catheter. During an interview on 03/13/25 at 2:33 PM, when asked what was expected when a resident needed to be placed on EBP, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated there should be a physician order, signaled and personal protective equipment (PPE) at the resident's room, and documentation 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 · D2025-03-13 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to initiate an immediate report in a timely manner in response to an allegation of abuse by 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for abuse, Resident #10. The findings included: The facility's policy, titled, 'Prevention of Resident Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment or Misappropriation of Property', with a reference date of November 2019, documented: Investigation: All suspected cases of abuse or misappropriation of resident's property will be fully investigated by the Administrator, Abuse Coordinator, or designee. The findings should be reported to the appropriate governing agencies. 6. File report to governing agencies. Reporting/Documentation Requirements: Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property are reported to the administrator of the center and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services…
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 before2025-03-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services for 3 of 28 sampled residents, as evidenced by, the failure to initiate interventions for proper positioning for Resident #95, failure to implement a brace to prevent edema and contractures for Resident #11; and failure to implement interventions in response to low blood sugar levels as per physician orders for Resident #18. The findings included: 1) Observations on 03/11/25 at 12:33 PM, 03/12/25 at 11:01 AM, and 03/12/25 at 12:33 PM revealed that Resident # 95 was positioned in a high back wheelchair with the leg rests fully elevated and a footbox over the leg rests. Resident #95 had his knees fully bent and his head and trunk were halfway down on the backrest of the wheelchair. An observation on 03/12/25 at 12:59 PM revealed two staff members lifting Resident #95 up by using the mechanical lift sling that was under him, to reposition him upright in the wheelchair prior to feeding him…
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 · D2025-03-13 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 observations, an interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to monitor the effectiveness of interventions for nutrition for 1 of 18 sampled residents (Resident #26) reviewed for nutrition. The findings included: Record review revealed Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Dementia, and Dysphagia (swallowing difficulty), following Cerebrovascular Disease. On 12/17/19, Resident #26 weighed 183 lbs (pounds). On 03/01/25, Resident #26 weighed 149.4 lbs. His BMI was 20.8, which was considered underweight for advanced age. Resident #26 was at risk for malnutrition per the nutrition care plan last revised on 02/25/25. Resident #26 was also at increased risk for aspiration. His prescribed diet order effective since 03/06/25 was for the enhanced diet, with pureed texture, and moderately thick fluids. On 03/10/25 at 03:26 PM, Resident #26 was observed seated at his dining location in the 200s POD. The POD is a shared community space for meals and other activities. He…
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 · D2025-03-13 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 observations, policy review, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to have a doctor's order for the administration of enteral feeding, also known as tube feeding, for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #50), reviewed for dependence on enteral feeding to meet their needs for nutrition. The findings included: Review of the facility's Nursing policy on the Services Procedure for Nutrition services on Feeding Systems, dated 10/2019, documented Nursing must confirm that a physician's order is in place for enteral feeding. Record review revealed that Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #50 went out to the Hospital emergency room on [DATE] for replacement of the PEG tube (a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube, is a thin flexible tube inserted through the skin into the stomach to provide nutrition and medication), and she returned on the same day. Her diagnoses included Dysphagia (swallowing problem) following Unspecified Cerebrovascular Disease, Cerebral Infarction,…
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 · D2025-03-13 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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, and interview, the facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions to reduce pain during personal care for 1 of 4 sampled residents, Resident #32, who was observed during personal care. The findings included: Review of the record revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], after having sustained a fall at home with a subsequent left hip fracture. The record documented the lack of surgery for the hip with routine healing expected. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, on a 0 to 10 scale, indicating severe cognitive impairment. This MDS also documented the resident was dependent upon staff for any care involving her lower extremities. Review of the care plan dated 02/19/25 documented Resident #32 had a functional mobility deficit as evidenced by severe pain to her left hip, secondary to the left hip fracture. Another care plan…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
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, and interview, the facility failed to properly store resident's refrigerated laboratory specimens at the regulatory requirements of 36 degrees F (Fahrenheit) to 46 degrees F. The findings included: During the review of the facility's policy for Laboratory Specimen Collection and Storage (Date Implemented 12/22/22 and Revised review/Revised 07/01/23), the following were noted: Policy: It is the policy of the facility to assure proper and safe collection and storage of laboratory specimens until pick up by the contracted Laboratory services. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will comply with CDC, Laboratory, and other regulatory bodies to provide safe and effective storage of all specimens. 3. Collected specimen requiring refrigeration will be stored in a designated refrigerator and maintained until collected by the laboratory. 4. All specimens will be maintained under required temperature. 6. Refrigerators used for storage of specimen: (d)…
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.
Show the remaining 5 citations
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-28 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 and interview, the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment in 4 of 67 rooms observed (rooms #104, #111, #209, and the laundry room). The findings included: On 07/26/22 at 10:00 AM, the following observations were made room [ROOM NUMBER]: a) An unlocked, rusty paper towel holder in the bathroom; b) Gaps 2-3 inches wide along the lower sides of a/c unit; c) The baseboard and wall just outside of the bathroom were soft, and there was a hole in the wall; d) The light switch for the room was crusted with a dark matter. On 07/28/22 at 9:50 AM, an observation made in room [ROOM NUMBER], just inside the entry door, revealed a black circular substance on the ceiling. On 07/28/22 at 10:00 AM, an observation was in room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed the privacy curtain was dislodged from most hooks and dragging on the floor. During tour of laundry room conducted on 07/28/22 at 3:15 PM with Director of Housekeeping, the wall behind the washing machines was missing part of the baseboard, and there…
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 · D2022-07-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure implementation of the care pland to provide assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #27). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Behavior Management Guidelines, dated 03/2022, documented the following: Wandering and exit seeking behavioral symptoms of special concern in the elderly and, or dementia population. Patients are evaluated upon admission for a history of, or risk factors for wandering and, or exit seeking. Interventions to consider include Personal security bracelet. Record review for Resident #27 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the most recent re-admission on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included Dementia with Behavioral Disturbances, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without Complications, Insomnia, Anxiety Disorder, Recurrent Depressive Disorders, Unspecified Fall, Subsequent Encounter, and Cognitive Social or Emotional Deficit…
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 · D2022-07-28 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to secure medications left at bedside for 1 of 6 residents observed during medication pass (Resident #48); and failed to secure medications in a safe manner for 1 of 6 medication carts potentially affecting 19 residents on the 100 Pod. The findings included: 1. Review of the facility Medication and Treatment Administration Guidelines, updated 03/2018, revealed Medication Storage and Security: Medications and biologicals are securely stored in a locked cabinet, caret, or medication room, accessible to only licensed nursing staff and pharmacist or authorized pharmacy staff and maintained under a lock system when not actively utilized and attended to by nursing staff for medication administration, receipting, or disposal. On 07/27/22 at 9:56 AM, an observation was made of Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), administering the eye drops to Resident #48 and then left the remaining medications at the bedside while she threw away the dirty tissues and her gloves in the bathroom. During an interview conducted on…
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.
- No harm found · B2022-07-28 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — patternDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the garbage dumpster in a clean, sanitary condition. The finding included: On 07/25/22 at 9:40 AM, during an initial main kitchen tour accompanied by the Certified Dietary Manager, the garbage dumpster was observed to be very dirty. The outside of the dumpster had built up dried food and stains all over the outside. The Certified Dietary Manager also observed the dumpster. On 07/25/22 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Certified Dietary Manager. She stated that the Housekeeping Department is responsible for cleaning the dumpster. On 07/27/22 at 3:41 PM, an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director. He acknowledged the finding.
- No harm found · B2022-07-28 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately complete PASSAR (Preadmission Screening and Record Review) documents for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #72 and Resident #76). The findings included: 1. A review of Resident #72's Level I PASARR, completed on 05/15/22, showed that this resident's PASAAR documented had a check mark in Section I A signifying a Mental Illness or suspected Mental Illness (MI) as Other: Dementia. There was also a check mark signifying a Yes in Section II.1, The individual has or may have had a disorder resulting in functional limitation in major life activities that would otherwise be appropriate for the individual's developmental stage. Resident did not meet the definition of a provisional admission or a hospital discharge exemption. Section II.5 documented that this resident did have a primary diagnosis of Dementia, and Section II.6 showed resident did not have a secondary diagnosis of Dementia, related neurocognitive disorder (including Alzheimer's disease) and the primary diagnosis is an Severe Mental Illness (SMI) or…
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 EXCELSIOR CARE GROUP — 33 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HEARTLAND BOYNTON INTERMEDIATE OPCO HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2023 |
| FLNHO CAPITAL GROUP LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2023 |
| PALM BEACH HEALTH PARTNERS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2023 |
| FISCHEL, MAYER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2023 |
| VARGHESE, MATHEW | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2023 |
| GEORGE, TIA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| LANDA, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2023 |
3 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 105755. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-13, 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.