No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Century Center For Rehabilitation And Healing

6020 Industrial Blvd, Century, FL 32535 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 88 certified beds · (850) 256-1540 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (850) 256-1540 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 10 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • 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)

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
6020 Industrial Blvd · (850) 256-1540 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
7531 Mayo St · (850) 256-3472 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
7241 N Century Blvd · (850) 256-3560 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased5.2%8.7%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight1.9%5.5%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.7%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms6.8%4.6%6.5%typical
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.1%2.5%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened3.9%9.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication13.5%14.4%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%99.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.8%4.5%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control3.8%10.5%21.2%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table6.1%8.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.4%1.5%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.7%94.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission28.5%26.1%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit14.0%9.1%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.492.131.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.711.151.80worse

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.

53.4% 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 82 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

53.4%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
61.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.10U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.04hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 61.5% 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 78 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 0.10 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 6% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF53.4%CMS range 45.4–62.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.9%CMS range 8.2–15.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge61.5%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge51.3%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge55.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified87.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting94.1%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge96.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization9.7%CMS range 5.9–16.07.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.911.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.66
RN hours/ resident / day
0.66
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.14
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.46
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.55
RN hoursweekends
40.5%
Total nursing turnover
40.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 88 beds and averages 84.0 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.46 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 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 3.19 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.57 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.55 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%. 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-20)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-11-07)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor 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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain resident care equipment in a sanitary manner or maintain the walls in a safe manner for 3 of 85 sampled rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]) and maintain handrails and wall cover bases in good condition for 2 of 2 shower rooms sampled (shower room [ROOM NUMBER] and #2).The findings include:200 hall An observation of the 200 hall handrails and wall near the shower room was conducted in the presence of the Maintenance Director on 2/20/26 at 9:38 AM. The handrails were scuffed with rough edges and the cover base near the floor on the wall was broken. (Photographic evidence obtained) The Maintenance Director stated he would sand the rails and would replace the cover base that day. room [ROOM NUMBER] An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s restroom was conducted on 2/17/26 at 1:37 PM. 1 denture brush and 2 tubes of toothpaste were observed underneath the paper towel dispenser, not labeled or bagged. A follow-up observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolated
    Provide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
    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 staff interviews and review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR), the facility failed to properly document the residents code status preference (preference on whether life saving measures should be implemented should the person's heart or breathing stop) and advance directives for 2 of 5 residents reviewed. (Resident #48 and #327) The findings include: On 11/05/24 at approximately 10:28 AM, an initial review of the EMR and paper chart for Resident 48 and 327 was performed. A record review including the EMR and paper chart revealed that Resident #48 was admitted on [DATE], but the code status and advaned directives were not documented in the EMR or paper chart at the time of the record review. A review of the Order Summary Sheet signed by the physician on 11/1/2024 does not include code status orders for Resident #48. A record review including the EMR and paper chart revealed that Resident #237 was admitted on [DATE], but the code status and advaned directives were not documented in the EMR or paper…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    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 resident's remain as free of accident hazards as is possible by not completing smoking evaluations for 1 of 1 resident selected for smoking. (Resident #12). The findings include: A review of Resident #12's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that Resident #12 was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] to the facility. Further review of the EMR revealed that there was no smoking evaluation completed for Resident #12 upon either admission. On 11/06/24 at approximately 12:49 PM, an observation was conducted of Resident #12 outside smoking and talking with other residents and staff. On 11/06/24 at approximately 2:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) concerning smoking evaluations. The DON confirmed that there was not an evaluation of smoking safety completed for Resident #12 for either admission in the resident's EMR. The DON stated that the Activities Director has been responsible for 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0559 — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to share a room with spouse or roommate of choice and receive written notice before a change is made.
    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 family interview, staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to honor resident rights regarding a room change request for 2 of 2 sampled residents, #184 and her roommate #185. On Saturday, 9/2/23, the family of resident #184 requested a room change due to safety concerns subsequent to agitated behaviors on the part of her roommate (#185). Staff on duty failed to initiate the room change, and informed the family member to address this concern with Social Services on Monday, 9/4/23. The findings include: On 9/25/23 at 12:25 PM a telephone interview was conducted with Resident #184's daughter. She stated that, on 8/31/23, her mother's roommate (Resident #185) threw a television remote at her but did not hit her. She further stated that, on Friday 9/1/23, Resident #185 was agitated and screaming, you are going to kill me and was sitting on Resident #184's bed. Resident #185 was redirected back to her bed by staff. After this incident, at approximately 7:20 PM, 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview and record reviews, the facility failed to identify and treat a recurring facial rash for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for skin conditions, Resident #21. The findings include: On 09/25/23 at approximately 12:35 PM, an observation was made of Resident #21 with a reddened, flaky, irritated skin rash to face around mouth, bilateral nares, and eyebrow area. Below the right nare was some crusty yellow drainage. An interview ensued with the resident, in which he stated the rash has been there for a while and the staff were treating it at one time but have not been lately. Resident #21 described the rash as bothersome and explained that it is reoccurring. An additional observation was made of the resident on 09/26/23 at approximately 2:55 PM, with no changes to the facial rash from the previous observation, and dry skin flakes were noted extending down the residents t-shirt across the chest area. A review of Resident #21's medical record included a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus (a chronic condition that affects the way the body…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure interventions to prevent falls (locking the wheelchair) and post-fall monitoring processes were followed for 1 of 3 residents sampled for accidents, #65. The findings include: On 09/25/23 at approximately 12:25 PM, an observation was made of Resident #65 sitting unattended in an unlocked high-back chair at the nurses station. Resident #65 had a large multicolored bruise noted to the left temple, eye, and cheek area. When Resident #65 was asked about the bruise, she mumbled incomprehensibly then stated fall, fall, fall. An interview was conducted with bypassing Employee O, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), who explained that she was unsure about the cause of Resident #65's bruising and would have to confirm with the nurse. When asked to explain how staff ensure the safety for residents who are identified as high fall-risk, CNA O verified that no supervising staff were present at the nurses station, but stated usually someone was here, they must have just stepped away. CNA O…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, observations, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding (tube feeding) site care for 1 of 1 individuals reviewed for tube feeding care. (Resident #72) The findings include: On 09/25/23 at approximately 12:40 pm, an observation was conducted of Resident #72 sitting in the day room semi-reclined in a high-back chair, with wet stains on his t-shirt. An interview was initiated with Resident #72 in which he stated the stain was from his leaking feeding tube. He proceeded to pull up his t-shirt exposing an unsecure blood-tinged saturated gauze, that he caught just before it hit the floor. It was at this time the drainage was observed to extend around towards his back and the skin around the stoma appeared excoriated. Resident #72 explained that the tube had been leaking for a while but was not sure why and explained that the nurses should be changing it later today. On 9/25/23 at approximately 12:45 pm, an…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews and resident record review, the facility failed to timely initiate orders to address the specific needs of the dialysis patient for 1 of 1 residents sampled for dialysis care. (Resident #66) The findings include: Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for rehabilitation after hospitalization for a Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA). The resident also had a history of End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) and was to continue to receive dialysis services. The admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Section O - Special Treatments and Programs was marked as Dialysis Treatment not received. The Care Plan for Dialysis was noted to be created in the electronic record on 9/20/2023. A review of vital sign records revealed multiple recordings of Blood Pressures taken from the Left arm, the location of Dialysis Shunt/Fistula (a connection between a vein and an artery that provides vascular access for hemodialysis, a treatment that cleans the blood by removing…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolated
    Provide or obtain dental services for each resident.
    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 upon interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide adequate dental care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for dental concerns. (Resident #19) The findings include: On 09/25/23 at approximately 12:15 pm, an interview was conducted with Resident #19, in which she voiced complaints about not being able to chew the facility served food. An additional interview was conducted on the same day at 2:45pm, in which Resident #19 explained her bottom dentures are causing her mouth to be sore and contribute to her having difficulty eating. She confirmed that she has not seen a dentist during her stay at the facility. A review of the resident's medical record revealed an admission to the facility on 4/4/23. Her diagnosis included Moderate Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), Hyposomolality (a condition where the levels of electrolytes, proteins, and nutrients in the blood are lower than normal) and Hyponatremia (lower than normal sodium electrolyte levels in the blood), Anxiety,…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure physician progress notes were present in the medical record for 6 of 6 residents sampled (#19. #21, #49, #58, #65, #72). The findings include: On 9/28/2023 at approximately 11:45 AM, a review of the medical records for Resident #49 and Resident #58 noted a document titled Chronological Record of Resident Assessment by Physician with the listed dates of provider visits. A further review of the hard copy and electronic medical record could not locate the narrative documentation of the provider visits for Resident #49 and Resident #58. On 9/28/2023 at approximately 12:45 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked for the medical provider notes for January 2023 through September 2023 for Resident #49 and Resident #58 to determine if the provider was aware of the residents decline in weight. On 9/28/2023 at approximately 2:11 PM, the DON provided the requested provider visits for December 2022 through May 2023. The DON was made aware of additional visits according to the Chronological Record of Resident…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 53.3+1.7 vs chain
Health inspection 5 of 52.8+2.2 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 52.6+1.4 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.3-0.3 vs chain
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.3★, per CMS)
1 of 5Hawthorne Center For Rehabilitation And Healing OfOcala, FL 1 of 5Valencia Hills Health And Rehabilitation CenterLakeland, FL 2 of 5Northbrook Center For Rehabilitation And HealingBrooksville, FL 2 of 5Palatka Center For Rehabilitation And HealingPalatka, FL 2 of 5Scott Lake Health And Rehabilitation CenterLakeland, FL 2 of 5Springs At Boca Ciega BaySouth Pasadena, FL 2 of 5Springs At Lake Pointe WoodsSarasota, FL 3 of 5Lake Bennet Center For Rehabilitation & HealingOcoee, FL 3 of 5Seven Hills Health & Rehabilitation CenterTallahassee, FL 3 of 5Timberridge Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterOcala, FL 3 of 5Ybor City Center For Rehabilitation And HealingTampa, FL 4 of 5Hawthorne Center For Rehabilitation And Healing OfBrandon, FL 4 of 5Lakeside Center For Rehabilitation And HealingJacksonville, FL 4 of 5Sandy Ridge Center For Rehabilitation And HealingMilton, FL 4 of 5Santa Rosa Center For Rehabilitation And HealingMilton, FL 4 of 5Surrey Place Healthcare And RehabilitationBradenton, FL 4 of 5Tampa Lakes Health And Rehabilitation CenterLutz, FL 5 of 5Diamond Ridge Health And Rehabilitation CenterLecanto, FL 5 of 5Hawthorne Center For Rehab & Healing Of SarasotaSarasota, FL 5 of 5Madison Health And Rehabilitation CenterMadison, FL 5 of 5North Bank Center For Rehabilitation And HealingJacksonville, FL

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
CENTURY SNF OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 02/01/2020
DREBIN, EZRIELIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST8%since 02/01/2020
SUMMIT CARE II INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 02/01/2020
KLEIN, SOLOMONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 02/01/2020

2 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.

$9.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+4.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.3M
Related-party expense16% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 74%Medicare 9%Other / private 17%

About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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

$292per resident / day
operating cost
$8,868per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$304per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Florida
$10,342/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$12,167/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,610/mo
Assisted living

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 105860. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-20, 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.

What to do next