Surrey Place Healthcare And Rehabilitation
5525 21st Ave W, Bradenton, FL 34209 · For profit - Corporation · 74 certified beds · (941) 795-0448 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
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 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 | 8.3% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 14.9% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.5% | 4.6% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 3.9% | 2.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.9% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.2% | 14.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.6% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.9% | 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 | 1.1% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.5% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.8% | 26.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.0% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.73 | 2.13 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.65 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
66.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 624 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 74.2% 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 283 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 0.66 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 66.9%CMS range 63.6–69.7 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 8.4–13.0 | 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 | 74.2% | 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 | 65.4% | 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 | 73.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 1.5% | 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 | 1.0% | 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 | 8.7%CMS range 6.2–11.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 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 74 beds and averages 66.0 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 8 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 4.04 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.28 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 3.69 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.19 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-13 · 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 observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to 1. Ensure staff who worked in the kitchen initiated proper hand hygiene in between and after touching soiled dishes and before touching clean dishes in the dish machine room, during two of four days observed (3/10/2025 and 3/12/2025), and 2. failed to follow proper food safety and storage procedures for one resident (Resident # 14) of eight residents sampled. Findings included: 1. On 3/10/2025 at 9:29 a.m., the facility's kitchen was entered and toured with Staff A, Dietary Manager. Staff A, Dietary Manager confirmed they operate a low temperature dish washing machine and pointed out the machine in the front right corner of the kitchen. The dish machine area appeared with a large mechanical dish washing machine with a metal table and table chute on the right side, which was used for soiled dishes and prerinse prior to dishes going into the dish washing machine. The left side of the machine was observed with a metal table and metal chute…
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 F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide a bed-hold notice at the time of transfer to three (#55, #60, and #11) of three residents sampled for hospitalizations. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #55's admission Record revealed the resident was originally admitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident #55's Nursing Notes showed on 2/2/2025 at 11:28 a.m., Resident #55 was sent to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation following an incident. Review of Resident #55's uploaded clinical documents did not include a bed-hold notice for the resident's transfer to a higher level of care on 2/2/2025. The progress notes on 2/2/2025 did not show the resident or representative was notified of the facility bed-hold notice. Review of the facility provided admission and Financial Agreement signed by Resident #55's family member and the facility's representative on 12/10/2024 described the facility's bed-hold policy. 2. Review of Resident #60's admission Record revealed the resident was originally…
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 F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 interviews, the facility failed to provide notice of transfer before a facility initiated transfer to two residents (Resident #11 and #60) out of three residents sampled for hospitalization. Findings Included: 1. Review of Resident #11's admission Record revealed Resident #11 had an original admission date of 9/9/2018 and a re-admission date of 3/7/2025. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis to include pneumonia, pleural effusion in other conditions classified elsewhere, sepsis, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase, and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #11's Change in Condition Evaluation, dated 3/4/2025 revealed under the section 1a. List the other change: Right Upper extremity shaking on and off; 02:88 on 2L [liters of oxygen]; sound congested. The Evaluation revealed under Recommendation of Primary Clinician(s): Transfer to hospital. Review of Resident #11's Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice revealed notice was given…
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 F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) screenings were accurate prior to a admission to the facility and did not follow up with a Level II PASRR screen for two residents (Resident #41 and #16) of forty-one sampled residents. Findings included: 1. On 3/10/2025 at 1:45 p.m. Resident #41 was observed in her wheelchair while therapy staff were assisting down the hallway and to the therapy gym. At 1:49 p.m. while in the gym, Resident #41 appeared anxious, but was participating in all the exercises that were presented to her. Resident #41 kept saying I just want to go home and just need to go home. On 3/12/2025 at 8:00 a.m., Resident #41 was assisted to the 300 unit nurses desk and lobby area. She was seated in her wheelchair and was awaiting a transport ride to an appointment. Resident #41 was given information that the transport van would be thirty minutes late. She then started to cry and was very anxious to get out to…
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 F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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 observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to accurately document in the clinical record for one resident (Resident #60) of forty-one sampled residents related to a physical assessment completed during a time the resident was not in the facility. Findings included: An observation on 3/11/25 at 8:31 a.m. revealed Resident #60 was sitting up in bed with a meal in front of her. The resident did not appear to be in visible distress. Review of a Skilled Nursing Facility/Nursing Facility (SNF/NF) to Hospital Transfer form showed the resident was transferred to an acute care facility on 2/21/25 for a midline placement by the vascular team. Review of a physician order written on 2/21/25 at 2:43 p.m. instructed staff to send Resident #60 to the emergency room (ER) for re-insertion of midline by vascular team. Review of Resident #60's payor source information showed the facility stop billing on 2/21/25 and the resident became active on 2/27/25. Review of Resident #60's Daily Medicare A/Managed Care Nursing Note dated 2/22/25 at 7:07 p.m. revealed a temperature…
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 F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide catheter care and services to prevent injuries and infections for two residents (#123 and #124) of nine sampled residents who utilized indwelling catheters, during two of four days observed (3/10/2025 and 3/12/2025). Findings included: 1. On 3/10/2025 at 10:25 a.m., Resident #123's room door was observed open from the main hallway. She was observed in her room seated in her wheelchair and being visited by a family member. Resident #123 was utilizing an indwelling catheter. From the hallway, the resident was observed with the catheter bag and tubing hanging directly below the seat of the wheelchair and with the bag and approximately two inches of catheter tubing on the floor. Resident #123 was observed scooting back and forth slowly while seated in her wheelchair with the catheter tubing and bag dragging on the floor. Review of Resident #123's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted from…
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 before2023-06-01 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to update and revise a care plan to reflect a significant weight loss for one (Resident #38) of twenty-one sampled residents. Findings Included: On 5/30/2023 at 10:00 a.m., and 1: 20 p.m., 5/31/2023 at 1:00 p.m., and 6/1/2023 at 12:00 p.m., Resident # 38, was observed lying down in her bed with her head elevated and her call light within her reach. She presented without behaviors, pain, or discomfort. The room appeared clean and well lit. A review of Resident #38's admission record showed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include but not limited to Parkinson's Disease, Unspecified, Gastro-Esophageal, Ileus Unspecified, and Reflux Disease Without Esophagitis. A review of the most current Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], show in Section C, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the electronic health record weights and vital…
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 · E2021-07-22 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure recliners furnished in resident rooms were maintained in ten of thirty rooms sampled with recliners. Findings included: On 7/20/21 at 3:30 p.m. a tour of the facility revealed recliners, located in resident rooms 318, 315, 316, 313, 311, 329, 113, and 159 with peeling upholstery on the backrest and arms of the chairs. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 7/21/21 at 10:00 a.m. room [ROOM NUMBER] and 322 were observed to have a recliner with peeling upholstery on the backrest. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 7/21/21 at 10:07 a.m. an interview was conducted with Staff C, housekeeper. Staff C stated she had been employed by the facility for six years, and she is responsible for cleaning all the resident rooms daily. Staff C stated she noticed the peeling on the recliners in the resident rooms, and some are worse than others. Staff C stated the recliners would peel 'fairly soon' after they were replaced. She stated the chairs…
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 before2021-07-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, staff interview, medical record review, the facility failed to ensure one of thirty-six sampled resident's (#44) care plans related to Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) was updated to reflect the resident had a current UTI and was receiving Antibiotics. Findings included: On 7/19/2021 at 9:40 a.m. Resident #44's room was approached, and the door was open. The resident was seated in her wheelchair by the foot of the bed and was conversing with a family/visitor. At 9:55 a.m. the visitor had left the room and Resident #44 allowed this surveyor to come in the room for an interview. During interview, Resident #44 revealed that she is currently being treated and takes medications for a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). She revealed that this was not the first time she has had a UTI. On 7/20/2021 at 8:00 a.m. an interview with a Licensed Practical Nurse, Employee A, who had Resident #44 on his assignment, confirmed Resident #44 is currently being treated for a UTI, and has had a history of UTI. 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 · D2021-07-22 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services, related to storage of oxygen, nebulizer, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) tubing's and supplies, consistent with professional standards of practice for three (Resident #159, Resident #158, and Resident #41) of ten residents receiving respiratory treatments. Findings included: A record review revealed Resident #159 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and congestive heart failure (CHF) as per the admission face sheet. A review of the orders for Resident #159 indicated respiratory treatments with oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula as needed and nebulizer treatments with Ipratropium-Albuterol solution 0.5-2.5 milligrams (mg) in 3 milliliters (ml) to inhale orally every six hours for shortness of breath. On 7/19/21 at 10:21 a.m. an observation of Resident #159's room revealed the oxygen tubing draped…
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 · D2021-07-22 · tag F0807 — failed to offer suitable drinks — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides drinks consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration.
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, staff and resident interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure resident food/drink preferences were honored during two meal services, and during one of four days observed (7/20/2021), for one of thirty-six sampled residents (#44). Findings included: On 7/20/2021 at 8:40 a.m. during an interview Resident #44 was served her breakfast meal tray. The Resident indicated it was OK to stay as she was going to therapy after breakfast and wanted to complete the interview while she was eating. When the tray was placed on the over-the-bed table, the resident stated, Oh good, OK, let me see what's under the lid. The resident then said, OK this is good. The resident looked at the rest of the tray and then told Employee B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Oh we have orange juice again on my tray, and I can't have orange juice, please take it away. Employee B took the juice and left the room. The Resident interview continued related to related to choices and likes/dislikes when…
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 SUMMIT CARE — 22 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 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.3★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SURREY PLACE SNF OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 45% | since 08/02/2023 |
| DAVIS, ALAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 25% | since 01/01/2014 |
| MITCHELL, JOSEPH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 30% | since 06/01/2002 |
| CH SUMMIT CARE HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/02/2023 |
| SEAM NY 2020 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/02/2023 |
| SK SUMMIT CARE II HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/02/2023 |
| SUMMIT CARE GROUP II OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/02/2023 |
| MCMANUS, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/03/2023 |
| SUMMIT CARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/04/2023 |
| CHRISTIAN, SHELLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/09/1994 |
| DALE, JULIANA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/09/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 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 $787K 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 105629. 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.