Westchester Gardens Health & Rehabilitation
3301 N McMullen Booth Rd, Clearwater, FL 33761 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (727) 785-8335 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 held steady at 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 | 10.1% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.9% | 4.6% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.6% | 9.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.7% | 14.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.5% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.5% | 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 | 5.1% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.2% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 37.4% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.4% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.93 | 2.13 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.00 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
59.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 481 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.9% 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 318 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 26% 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 | 59.7%CMS range 55.1–65.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 9.0–14.8 | 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 | 56.9% | 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 | 67.0% | 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 | 52.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 99.3% | 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 | 99.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 9.1%CMS range 6.5–12.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 109.6 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.08 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% 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
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-03 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to implement the ordered interventions to alleviate pressure to the heels for one resident (#1) out of three reviewed for following wound care provider orders.Findings included: Review of admission Record showed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include left hip fracture, emphysema, respiratory failure, dementia and moderate protein calorie malnutrition. Review of Resident #1's Wound and Healing progress notes, dated 9/24/2025, showed wound orders for wound #2 on the left heel and wound #3 right heel to off load wound, and float heels in bed. Resident #1's plan of care was discussed with nursing.A review of Resident #1's order summary report, as of 9/29/2025, revealed that the orders to off-load the wound and float heels in bed, as directed by the wound care provider, were not entered.Review of Resident #1's care plans showed focus areas for alteration in skin integrity and potential for alteration in skin integrity,…
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 · E2025-06-05 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for medication and transmission-based precautions for one resident (#451) of 36 sampled residents on five of five days reviewed involving five nurses on three different shifts. Findings included: Review of Resident #451's medical record revealed Resident #451 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for short-term rehabilitation. On 5/29/25 the resident was placed on empiric contact transmission-based precautions for a rash identified on the resident's skin. The resident received treatment on 5/31/25 for Ivermectin three milligrams, give three tablets by mouth one time only for one day. Review of the progress note documentation for 06/02/25 at 3:29 PM indicated the contact precautions were removed after the nurse practitioner examined the resident and treated her for folliculitis and ordered doxycycline antibiotic for seven days. Documentation by nurses for the ALERT antibiotic/infection note revealed the following: On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene during meal service in four halls (200, 300, 400 and 500 hall of six halls observed, and for nine residents (#3, #60, #452, #448, #96, #76, #1, #58 and #43) of 36 residents sampled. 2) The facility failed to implement their infection prevention and control plan by failing to provide evidence of process surveillance of staff practices directly related to resident care. 3) The facility failed to properly use enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for one resident (#19) of two residents observed for EBP with indwelling medical devices. 4) The facility failed to properly disinfect a multi-use blood glucometer for two staff members observed during medication administration (Staff members O, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and P, Registered Nurse (RN)) of five staff observed. The current census was 113 residents. Findings included: 1. During a dining observation on the 500 wing on 6/02/25 at 11:32 AM, two staff members…
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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received a dignified dining experience in two halls (200 and 300) of six halls toured and for three residents (#1, #58 and #43) of 36 residents sampled. Findings included: 1. An observation was conducted on 06/02/25 at 12:26 p.m. of Resident #1 in her room during her lunch meal. The resident was receiving meal assistance from Staff R, Clinical Student. Staff R was observed standing over the resident. An observation was conducted on 06/02/25 at 12:16 p.m. of Resident #58 in her room during her lunch meal, being assisted by Staff V, Clinical Student. Staff V was observed standing over the resident. A dining observation of Hall 200 was conducted on 06/02/25 at 12:04 p.m., observations were made of staff delivering trays to residents in their rooms. The staff members did not knock or announce themselves prior to entering the resident's rooms as follows: Staff T, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Staff W, CNA, were…
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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure five resident room bathrooms out of ten resident room bathrooms toured on the 400 hallway of the facility's Queen's Way resident unit were maintained in a clean, homelike environment. (Photographic evidence obtained.) The findings include: On 06/02/25 at 10:38 am, the bathroom vent above the toilet in room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed covered in dust. On 06/03/25 at 9:11am, the bathroom vent above the toilet in room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed covered in dust. On 06/03/25 at 9:15 am, the bathroom vent above the toilet in room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed covered in dust. On 06/03/25 at 9:18 am, the bathroom vent above the toilet in room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed covered in dust. On 06/03/25 at 9:30 am, the bathroom vent above the toilet in room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed covered in dust. On 06/03/25 at 9:32 am, the bathroom vent above the toilet in room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed covered in dust.…
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 · D2025-06-05 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for one resident (#49) out of four residents sampled for grooming and personal hygiene services. The findings include: On 06/02/25 at 11:16 a.m., Resident #49 was observed in a wheelchair in the 400 hallway. His right-hand fingernails were observed elongated with brown debris under each nail. His left-hand fingernails were observed elongated. On 06/02/25 at 11:39 a.m., Resident #49 was observed in his room. His right-hand fingernails were observed elongated with brown debris under each nail. His left-hand fingernails were observed elongated. Resident #49 was interviewed at the time of the observation, and he said he likes his nails short, and he doesn't think staff clean and trim his fingernails. Photographs of Resident #49's fingernails were obtained with his verbal permission. On 06/03/25 at 9:35 a.m., Resident #49 was observed lying in bed, awake and dressed for the day. His right-hand fingernails were observed elongated with brown…
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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure continuous oxygen therapy was provided per physician orders, and failed to ensure respiratory equipment was stored appropriately for one resident (#76) of one resident sampled. Findings included: During facility tours conducted on 06/02/25 at 09:43 a.m. and 06/03/25 at 09:24 a.m. Resident #76 was observed in her room lying on her bed. The resident was observed with continuous oxygen (O2) on. The oxygen concentrator revealed her oxygen was set at 3.2 liters. During these observations, Resident #76's nebulizer mask was observed on her bedside table uncovered. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). Review of Resident #76's admission record revealed an admission date of 08/23/24 with diagnoses to include respiratory failure with hypoxia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of physician orders for Resident #76 revealed the following: O2 at 2L/min (liters per minute) via N/C (nasal cannula) PRN (as needed) for O2 sats (saturation) lesser than 92% DX (diagnosis): Hypoxia - Start date 08/23/2024.…
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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one resident (#59) of three sampled residents who require wound care were provided with pain management services and staff accurately assessed for the presence of pain. Findings included: On 6/2/25 at approximately 10:48 AM, Resident #59 was observed in his room and Staff I, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was observed to be preparing supplies for wound care treatments. Staff I, LPN requested a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) to assist her with turning the resident onto his right side. The CNA held the resident on his right side and Staff I, LPN proceeded to remove a sacral dressing and a dressing to the left ischial (buttock) area. Resident #59 was observed to attempt and reach back behind him with his left hand toward the CNA and the CNA was observed to hold the resident's hand down. Staff I, LPN proceeded to use a gauze pad soaked with normal saline to clean the resident's wounds. Resident #59 began to make noises indicating he…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-05 · 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 record review, the facility did not ensure medications were inaccessible to unauthorized staff, residents, and visitors for three residents (#37 #86, and #76) of 36 sampled residents. Findings included: 1. During a facility tour on 06/02/25 at 10:01 a.m. an observation was made of Resident #37 sitting in her wheelchair with her bedside table positioned in front of her. An observation was made of a white capsule medication on the bedside table. Another observation was made of an unidentified white powder in a medication measuring cup placed on top of the resident's dresser next to four bottles of a beverage. The resident could not answer questions related to the capsule medication or the unidentified powder. On 06/03/25 at 09:25 a.m. an observation was made of an unknown white powder in a plastic medicine cup on Resident #37's dresser next to bottles of beverages, similar to what as previously observed. Review of Resident #37's admission Record revealed Resident #37 was…
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 before2023-04-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow care plan interventions related to fall mat placement for two of four observations made during a four-day survey, for one (Resident #12) of three residents reviewed for falls. Findings included: Review of Resident #12's admission record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with medical diagnoses that included but were not limited to multiple sclerosis, repeated Falls, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, cognitive communication disorder, insomnia, and overactive bladder. During an observation on 04/03/23 at 09:16 p.m., Resident #12 was observed in his bed with one fall mat to the right side of his bed, in-between his bed and the wall. The resident was interviewed at this time, and he stated, They just left the mat there, they said I fell out of bed, but I got out of bed. It didn't turn out too good. I didn't use the call light. I didn't have injuries, just my pride was damaged because I…
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 · Ecited before2021-06-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to appropriately secure medications in four medication carts (100,200,400 and 500 Halls) of five medication carts sampled. Findings included: On 6/24/2021 at 02:51 p.m., an observation was conducted of the Medication Cart located on 100 Hall, which included in the sixth draw from the top of the medication cart, loose tablets. Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) confirmed the presence of the one (1) white tablet, two (2) one- half (1/2) pieces of a white tablet and one quarter (1/4) of a white tablet observed to be in the third draw from the top of the medication cart. On 6/24/2021 at 3:03 p.m., an observation of medication cart located on the 400 Hall included four (4) loose tablets. Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), confirmed the presence of unsecured medications of one (1) white round tablet and one yellow tablet seen in the 4th draw from the top of the medication cart. Staff B (LPN) also confirmed the presence of a white tablet located in the fifth draw and a pink unsecured tablet in the 6th draw. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-06-25 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to provide the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman with a written notice of the hospital transfers for two (#63 and #105) out of two residents reviewed for hospitalizations. Findings included: 1. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) census revealed Resident #63 was admitted on [DATE]. Further review of the EMR indicated that an unplanned transfer occurred for the resident to an acute care facility on 4/29/21 and was returned to this facility on 5/3/21. An additional review of the EMR did not include information that the Ombudsman was notified of Resident #63's transfer that occurred on 4/29/21. 2. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) census and the physical hard copy of the clinical record for Resident #105 that indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review of the EMR and the hard copies indicated that the resident had an unplanned transfer on 4/28/21. An additional review of the EMR and hard copy 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-06-25 · 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, record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions were properly implemented for two (#65 and #305) of six residents sampled for care planning Findings included: 1. A review of the facility's fall log revealed that Resident #65 had documented falls on 6/7/21, 6/10/21, and 6/15/21. A review of Resident #65's clinical progress notes for the identified events on the facility's fall log revealed: -6/8/21 at 12:35 AM: Patient found on floor in kneeling position at bedside. Patient alert and confused. Unable to answer questions appropriately. Limited [Range of Motion (ROM)] to lower extremities. Patient PERRLA [pupils equal and reactive to light], strong hand grasps bilaterally, no complaints of H/A [headache], nausea or vomiting. Skin intact with slight redness to bilateral knees. Family and [Primary Care Physician (PCP)] notified by supervisor. Assisted patient back into bed via hoyer lift with assist of 2. Will monitor for any changes. Post fall evaluation…
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 · D2021-06-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that the medication error rate was below 5.00%. A total of twenty-seven medications were observed administered and two errors were identified for one (1) (Resident #103) of three (3) residents observed. These errors constituted a medication error rate of 7.41 percent. Findings included: An observation of 500 Hall medication administration on 06/24/2021 at 11 a.m., resulted in Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), giving Resident #103 two (2) medications for Hypertension (HTN) of Losartan Potassium 100mg (milligrams)and Metoprolol Tartrate 25 mg. Observation of the medication on the Electronic Medical Record (EMAR) computer screen that Staff E, (LPN) was looking at was noted to contain parameters for both medications read Hold if SBP [systolic blood pressure] is less than 110 or HR (pulse) less than 60. An immediate interview was conducted at 11:11 a.m. with Staff E, (LPN) related to administration of the two Blood Pressure (BP)…
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 THE GOODMAN GROUP — 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 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BEVERLY N. GROSSMAN REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2015 |
| JOHN B. GOODMAN 2006 IRRV GRANTOR TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/28/2017 |
| THE GOODMAN GROUP PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/31/2006 |
| WERNER VENTURES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/17/1989 |
| WESTCHESTER GARDENS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/17/1989 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA TRUST COMPANY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 02/28/2017 |
| BENSON, RANDALL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 02/28/2017 |
| GROSSMAN, BEVERLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 05/01/2015 |
| SALMEN, THOMAS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 02/28/2017 |
| WEICHERT, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 02/28/2017 |
| WILSON, MARK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 02/28/2017 |
| REED, TRAVIS | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/07/2023 |
| EDINGER, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/21/2016 |
| KNACKE, CLINTON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/12/2022 |
| OLSON, DENISE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/16/2013 |
| JBGE WESTCHESTER INC | Organization | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2003 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $997K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in FL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Florida Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 105654. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-05, 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.