Westminster Point Pleasant
1533 4th Ave W, Bradenton, FL 34205 · Non profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (941) 747-1881 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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) | 4 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 | 4 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 | 6.8% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.6% | 4.6% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.8% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.0% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.8% | 14.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.2% | 10.5% | 21.2% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.2% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.3% | 26.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.9% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.48 | 2.13 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.55 | 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.
52.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 411 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.5% 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 162 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 0.48 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 79% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 27% 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 | 52.8%CMS range 49.0–56.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 8.6–14.1 | 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 | 52.5% | 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 | 48.1% | 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 | 41.4% | 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 | 86.2% | 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 | 0.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.0% | 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 | 7.0%CMS range 4.6–9.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 113.7 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 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.87 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.32 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.91 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.94 to 0.71 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-08-14 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews and facility record review, the facility failed to operate and maintain the dish washing machine per manufacturer's specifications related to the wash cycle not meeting temperature requirements for one machine of one dish washing machine observed. Findings included: During a kitchen tour on 8/11/2025 at 9:49 a.m., the Kitchen Manager indicated the facility operates a High temperature type dish washing machine and revealed the wash should reach at least 160 degrees Fahrenheit (F.) and a final rinse should reach 190 degrees F. He revealed all staff in the kitchen are trained on how to operate the machine and log temperatures. Review of the specification plate on the dish machine revealed the machine was operating as a high temperature dish washing machine and the wash temperature should reach 160 degrees F., and the Rinse temperature should reach 180 degrees F. The Kitchen Manager confirmed the machine's operations specificationsOn 8/11/2025 at 9:52 a.m., the Kitchen Manager and Staff K, Dining Services Technician, both confirmed they had been…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 review, the facility failed to formulate an advance directive and did not ensure a current copy was in the resident's medical record for one resident (#45) of twenty-six residents sampled.Findings included: Review of the admission record revealed Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the advanced directives revealed the resident was a FULL CODE status and did not have documentation for the designated POA (Power of Attorney) and the primary decision-maker for care. Review of an admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 7/17/2025, revealed Resident #45 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment that was not scored, but revealed short-term (ST)/long-term (LT) memory problems with Severely Impaired Decision-Making Skills. An interview was conducted with Staff G, a social worker, on 08/12/2025 at 2:50 p.m. She reviewed the social assessment form that was completed for Resident #45. The form was completed by the resident's spouse on July…
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 · D2025-08-14 · 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 interview, the facility failed to complete and update the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASARRs) for residents with qualifying mental health diagnoses for two residents (#3 and #10) of 6 residents reviewed for PASARRs. Findings included: Review of the admission record showed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of dementia on – 4/14/23 and secondary diagnoses with onset dates, mood disorder - 4/14/23, depression - 4/14/23 irritability and anger - 4/14/23 bipolar - 4/14/23 anxiety - 4/14/23 and failure to thrive - 4/14/23. Review of a level I PASARR for Resident #10 dated 5/28/24 revealed all the qualifying diagnoses were not checked. The review showed the Level I PASARR was incomplete, and a level II was not submitted for consideration following qualifying diagnoses. Review of the admission record showed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of cerebral infarction on – 2/19/25 and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-14 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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 ensure timely assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) consistent with the assessed and care planned toileting needs for one resident (#48) of three residents sampled.Findings included: On 8/12/ 2025 at 11:30 a.m., Resident #48 was observed lying down in bed, with no signs of distress. The resident reported concerns with his care because a couple of days ago he was placed on a bed pan and left on it for approximately 45 minutes. An interview was conducted on 08/13/2025 at 2:36 p.m. with Resident #48 stating having had to wait about two hours to receive assistance after being placed on the bed pan. He said Staff T, certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) came to his room around 8:00 a.m. and told the resident she was not able to assist him because she could not find his bed pan and she had to go to the dining room. He said he waited for about 15 minutes then he put his call light back on. Another unidentified CNA answered the call light,…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide meal assistance for two residents (#39 and #45) of thirty-four sampled residents during two of three meal observations on 8/11/2025 and 8/13/2025. Findings included: 1.8/11/2025 at 12:30 p.m. Resident #39 was observed seated in the third-floor dining room at a table and with two other residents. By 12:34 p.m. the other two table mates were served and set up with their lunch meal tray. A staff member was observed to serve one of the three residents at the same table and sat down in a chair and proceeded to assist that resident with eating activities. Resident #39 was still observed at the table and had no meal tray in front of her. The other two were eating as Resident #39 watched. Resident #39 was observed to fall asleep twice but would open her eyes from time to time and looked at her table mates. Resident #39 was not interviewable and would not be able to answer questions related to her medical care and day’s activities. At…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5%. Thirty-two medication opportunities were observed, and six errors were identified for Resident #29 resulting in an error rate of 18.75%.Findings included: On 8/11/25 at 10:45 a.m., Staff P, Registered Nurse (RN) was observed administering medications to Resident #29. Staff P, RN administered the following medications: Pregabalin 25 mg, Amlodipine 5 mg, Aspirin 81mg, Zoloft 50 mg, Potassium chloride ER 10 meq and Tamsulosin 0.4 mg. Following the medication administration observation, a review of Resident# 29's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the Pregabalin, Amlodipine, Aspirin, Zoloft, Potassium Chloride, and Tamsulosin was scheduled to be administered at 9:00 a.m.On 8/13/25 during an interview Staff O, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), said nurses are allowed to administer medications between one hour before and one hour after the scheduled medication administration time. On 8/13/25 at 2:56 p.m. during an interview the Director of Nursing…
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 · E2025-06-10 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 implement timely their Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy and procedure related to reporting alleged abuse and neglect incidents for three residents (#1, #2, and #3) of three sampled for Abuse and Neglect. Findings included: 1. A review of the facility's Abuse Log showed Resident #1 had an incident, date notified of allegation was on 05/15/2025, reported to DCF (Department of Children and Families) on 05/15/2025. The incident was documented as Yes to being substantiated, and Yes it was an adverse related to Resident #1 did not receive medications for two days, which was communicated immediately to the Abuse Coordinator on 05/10/25, the date the event started. A review of Resident #1's admission Record documented an admission to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a progress note dated 05/08/2025 showed Resident #1 was transferred to a local hospital on [DATE] at 1312 (1:12 p.m.), for an evaluation and subsequently returned on 05/08/2025 at…
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 · D2023-04-27 · 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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure care planning interventions were implemented related to; 1) Not providing adaptive eating equipment during meal service, and 2) Not offering and assisting with braces/splinting for contracture management for two residents (#83 and #36) out of twenty-two sampled residents. Findings included: 1) On 4/24/2023 at 12:40 p.m. Resident #83's room was approached and from the hallway, the resident could be seen in his room seated in a high-back wheelchair next to his bed, with the over the bed table positioned in front of him. The resident was noted to be alone in the room with his meal tray placed in front of him. The floor beneath him was observed with what appeared to be a puddle of red liquid. The resident was able to confirm he had dropped some liquid on the ground. Resident #83 was interviewed; he was noted to have to take time to answer general questions about his day. The resident was noted to have some food pocketed within his…
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 before2023-04-27 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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 ensure eating assistance and adaptive eating equipment was provided for one resident (#83) out of twenty-two sampled residents. Findings included: On 4/24/2023 at 12:40 p.m. Resident #83's room was approached and from the hallway, the resident could be seen in his room seated in a high-back wheelchair next to his bed, with the over the bed table positioned in front of him. The resident was noted to be alone in the room with his meal tray placed in front of him. The floor beneath him was observed with what appeared to be a puddle of red liquid. The resident was able to confirm he had dropped some liquid on the ground. Resident #83 was interviewed; he was noted to have to take time to answer general questions about his day. The resident was noted to have some food pocketed within his mouth on both sides. While in the room with Resident #83 from 12:40 p.m. through to 12:52 p.m., no staff were observed to enter the room to assist 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 · D2023-04-27 · 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, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice related to following physician orders for oxygen therapy for one resident (#52) out of two sampled residents for respiratory care. Findings included: A review of the admission Record for Resident #52 showed she was initially admitted into the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/11/23, revealed in Section C Cognitive Patterns, Resident #52 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of fifteen indicating cognitively intact. Section O Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs indicated Resident #52 was on oxygen while a resident. A review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 04/27/23 revealed the following order: -continuous oxygen at 2 liters per minute via…
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 · D2021-05-27 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure proper labeling and storage of drugs and biologicals for two (Resident #77 and Resident #66) of eight residents observed for medication administration, in three of three medication carts observed, and in one of two medication storage rooms observed. Findings included: A medication cart inspection was conducted on 05/26/21 at 10:56 a.m. with Staff F, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) on the 200 unit of the facility. A container of glucose monitoring test strips was observed in the top drawer of the medication cart. The glucose monitoring test strips did not have a date labeled on them to indicate when they were opened. Staff F, LPN was not able to state whether or not the glucose monitoring test strips should have been dated upon opening and stated that she would not normally put a date on the bottle. Two small brown bottles of Nitroglycerin 0.4 milligram (mg) tablets was observed in the medication cart. One of the small…
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 · D2021-05-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to follow their policy to appropriately store and maintain food in for a safe and sanitary manner in one of four refrigerators and one freezer. Findings included: During the initial kitchen tour on 05/29/2021 at 9:30 a.m., an observation of the freezer revealed two large white plastic buckets of cornbread batter on the floor of the freezer. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) confirmed the presence on the floor, and indicated they need to be stored on a shelf. The CDM further indicated that they were moved there due to inventory process and placed each bucket on the bottom shelf. Observation of the walk-in refrigerator included on the side second shelf, a cardboard box that contained two moldy lemons. On the first shelf at the back of the refrigerator, a large bottle was seen without a cover, that contained garlic. The CDM, confirmed the presence of both moldy lemons, and asked an unidentified kitchen staff to remove the bottle of garlic, that she quickly threw away into a nearby garbage receptacle.…
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 WESTMINSTER COMMUNITIES OF FLORIDA — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.3★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BELL, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2014 |
| DEBEVOISE, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| DODDRIDGE, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2025 |
| DYE, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2014 |
| EARLY, MARY ELLEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| HILLENMEYER, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2014 |
| HULL, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| KUTAC, KRISTIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| MADDUX, CARLEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| MOCK, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| RAMSEY, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| SHELLEY, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| FAUBEL, MEGAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2025 |
| HENNIS, GARRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2025 |
| KEITH, HENRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/1994 |
| WESTMINSTER SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/1991 |
| CHABRIER, CATHERINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/17/2025 |
| KRALIK, SHADRICK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner 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 $3.3M 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 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 106030. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, 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.