Susanna Wesley Health Center
5300 W 16th Avenue, Hialeah, FL 33012 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (305) 556-3500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.2% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.6% | 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 | 1.0% | 0.7% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.8% | 4.6% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.1% | 2.5% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.6% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.3% | 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 | 2.3% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 1.1% | 10.5% | 21.2% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.5% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.5% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.5% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.5% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.4% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.66 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.31 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
48.5% 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 90 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 67.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 177 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 0.83 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 48.5%CMS range 36.6–57.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.1%CMS range 10.8–18.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 67.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 71.8% | 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 | 71.8% | 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 | 98.6% | 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 | 98.4% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 93.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.7%CMS range 5.0–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.26 | 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 119.0 residents a day — about 99% occupied, or roughly 1 bed 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 3.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.11 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.27 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 3.86 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.59 on weekdays — about the same on weekends as weekdays. RN hours go from 1.04 to 1.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% 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 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.
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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to protect residents' information on the third floor as evidenced by, an observation of a computer screen unattended with residents' information visible and easily accessible. There were 118 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. The findings included: On 6/12/25 at 10:28 AM while ambulating along the third floor hallway, the observed a the screen of an unattended computer with residents' information visible. Interview on 6/12/25 at 10:33 AM Staff J, Registered Nurse (RN) was asked about protecting resident information and protocol for the computer screen when unattended. Staff , RN stated: The cart is to be locked, and the computer is screen is to be closed when I walk away. To protect the privacy of all residents. Sometimes I minimize the screen and if the cart is moved it opens up again. Interview on 6/12/25 at 1:33 PM, the Director of Nursing revealed nurses were instructed on locking the computer screen when leaving the medication cart and not to minimize screen with resident information…
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 before2025-06-12 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 code a Minimum data set that accurately reflects resident's status for one (Resident #275) out of one sampled resident as evidenced by the MDS not coded for indwelling urinary catheter, despite Resident #275 having an indwelling urinary catheter since admission. There were seven residents with indwelling urinary catheter at the time of the survey. The findings included: On 6/09/25 at 10:13 AM, Resident #275 was observed seated in the activities area with an indwelling urinary catheter in place. On 6/11/25 at 4:29 PM, Resident #275 was observed in bed watching tv, an indwelling urinary catheter was in place, inside a dignity bag. Review of Resident 275 clinical records revealed admissions dated 4/16/25 and 5/22/25. Clinical diagnosis: Encounter for other orthopedic aftercare. Record review of a physician's order sheet revealed an order dated: 5/22/23 for Indwelling urinary catheter for Diagnosis Obstructive Uropathy Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) reference dated 5/28/25 indicate in Section C for…
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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to revise a tube feeding care plan for one (Resident #97) out of one sampled resident as evidenced by the care plan interventions included abdominal binder despite no physician order for an abdominal binder. There were nine residents with tube feedings at the time of survey. The findings included: On 6/09/25 at 9:53 AM Resident #97 was observed in bed with the head of bed elevated and a tube feeding in progress. Record review of Resident #97's demographic sheet revealed an admission date of 2/17/25 clinical diagnosis including Dysphagia following cerebral infarction and Encounter for attention to gastrostomy. Record review of a Scheduled 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) reference dated 2/3/25 revealed Resident #97 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score s 00, indicating severe cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living, and had a feeding tube. Record review of a care plan started on: 2/18/25, last reviewed/revised: 6/02/25 revealed Resident #97 has the potential for…
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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 provide supervision to prevent accident hazards for one (Resident #275) out of one resident sampled, as evidenced by a fire lighter in a transparent bag observed next to Resident #275 while resident was seated in the activities area where other residents were gathered. There were 118 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. The findings included: On 6/09/25 at 10:13 AM Resident # 275 was observed seated in a wheelchair in The activities room amongst other residents. Surveyor observed a fire lighter inside a transparent bag next to Resident #275 (photographic evidence). The surveyor asked Resident #275 what the lighter is used for and Resident # 275 stated: My business. The Registered Nurse Manager was immediately notified and retrieved the lighter from Resident #275 and stated: [Resident #275] is not allowed to have this lighter and is not a smoker. Interview on 6/09/25 at 10:15 AM, Staff K, the assigned Certified…
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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
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 demonstrate effective action plans were implemented to correct identified quality deficiencies in the problem area related to prevent repeated deficient practice for F641- Accuracy of assessment. As evidenced by inaccurate MDS coding. The findings included: Review of the facility's survey history revealed, during a recertification survey with exit dated 02/15/ 2024, F641- Accuracy of assessment was cited related to the facility's failure to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for two out of four residents reviewed for assessments. During this survey with an exit dated 06/12/2025, repeated deficient practice was identified for F641- Accuracy of assessment, related to failure to code indwelling urinary catheter under section H for Resident # 275. During an interview on 06/12/2025, at 2:30 PM, the Director of Nursing and Administrator revealed Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI)/Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee meets monthly, and the last meeting was held 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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 observations, interview and record review, the facility's staff failed to implement infection prevention control policies and procedures to ensure a sanitary environment and failed to provide proper perineal and catheter care to help prevent Urinary Tract Infections (UTI); as evidenced two clear plastic bags containing trash on the third-floor hallway and during perineal care staff did not change gloves and wash hands when transitioning from a contaminated area to a clean area and did not change water in the basin between cleaning steps. There were 116 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings included: On 06/09/2025 08:46 AM, during observational tour, of the third floor two clear plastic bags containing trash was observed on the third-floor hallway next to a residents' room. (photographic evidence). Interview on 06/12/2025 at 01:38 PM, Staff M, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) regarding the trash and soiled supplies on the hallway. Staff M revealed the soiled linen…
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 · D2024-05-24 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medically needed social services were provided for one resident (Resident #4) out of three residents reviewed. The resident was charged $100.00 for someone to accompany him each time he went out to an appointment. There were 117 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings included: Review of the facility's Transportation to an Appointment Policy and Procedure (no written date); Policy Statement-Our facility will assist residents in arranging transportation to/from appointments when necessary; Policy Interpretation and Implementation-1) Should it become necessary to transport a resident to an appointment, when necessary, outside the facility, the Social Service Designee or Charge Nurse shall notify the resident's representative and inform them of the appointment; 2) The resident's representative will be responsible for transporting the resident to his or her appointment; 3) Should it become necessary 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the Third Floor Pantry refrigerator used exclusively for the resident's was maintained in a sanitary manner as evidenced by opened undated milk carton observed. This has the potential to affect fifty-five residents out of fifty-seven residents who eat orally residing on the Third floor. The findings included: Observation of the Third Floor Nourishment Pantry on 2/14/2024 at 7:33 AM revealed a pint carton of 2% reduced milk was opened and not dated. Photographic evidence submitted. Observation and interview with Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN), Nursing Supervisor on 2/14/2024 at 7:34 AM. She confirmed the milk carton was open and not dated. She stated, I forgot to check the refrigerator. They said they just opened the milk. Interview with the Dietary Supervisor on 2/14/2024 at 7:58 AM. She revealed that nursing is responsible for making sure the pantry refrigerators are in order and are contained properly. Interview with the Registered Dietitian on 2/14/2024 at 8:56 AM revealed that once a milk carton is…
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 · E2024-02-15 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 provide a safe environment for residents on the second floor, as evidenced one out of one Biohazard room observed on the facility's second floor door was kept unlocked. This has the potential to affect the 58 residents residing on the second floor during the survey. The findings included: On 02/14/2024 at 10:15 AM The door of the Biohazard room on the second floor was not locked. On 02/14/2024 at 10:15 AM, Staff B observed entering Biohazard room by pushing the door open. The Biohazard room door unlocked while staff inside. On 02/14/2024 at 10:20 AM; One staff member observed pushing the door of the Biohazard room open and entering. The Biohazard room door was unlocked while staff inside. On 02/14/2024 at 10:25 AM, Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant stated there is a key to open the door; I didn't use it because the door was open. On 02/14/2024 at 10:26 AM, Staff C, Registered Nurse Supervisor stated: the Biohazard room door should always be locked to prevent residents from entering the room and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-15 · 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, records review and interview, the facility failed to promote dignity while dining for two Residents (#21 and #62) out of twenty-six sampled residents, as evidenced by observations of staff standing over Resident #21 and Resident #62 while assisting to eat. The findings included: On 02/12/2024 at 8:05 AM in room [ROOM NUMBER] bed b, Staff G, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) observed standing while assisting Resident #21 with breakfast. Record review of Resident #21's demographic face sheet revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Diabetes mellitus and Severe Protein-Calorie Malnutrition. Record review of Discharge Return Anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Section C for cognitive patterns revealed a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of undetermined out of a scale of 0-15, that indicated severe cognitive impairment. Section K for swallowing/nutrition status revealed resident #21 received a mechanically altered…
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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically transmit the Discharge- Return Non-Anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) to Centers of Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) within 14 days for one (Resident # 10) out of two residents whose assessments were investigated. Resident #10 who was discharged to the community but the MDS was not transmitted. There were 120 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. The findings included: Record review of the clinical records for Resident # 10 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was discharged home on [DATE]. Review of the Discharge Return Non-Anticipated MDS Section A Identification Information dated 10/01/2023 revealed the resident was discharged to the community (home). The Discharge Return Non-Anticipated MDS dated [DATE] was not transmitted within 14 days after completion. During an interview with the MDS Coordinator on 02/14/24 at 01:19 PM. She reported that the assessment was completed but not transmitted…
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 before2024-02-15 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for two (Resident #117 and Resident #44) out of four residents reviewed for residents' assessments. There were 120 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings include: 1) In a record review for Resident #117, the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was discharged home on [DATE]. Record review of medical diagnosis include heart failure, muscle/ wasting atrophy (gradual decline) of left/ right upper arms and left/right lower leg. Review of physician orders revealed Resident #117 was to be discharged home on 1/12/2024 with home health with a Registered Nurse, physical therapist, and occupational therapist with a wheelchair, walker, and commode. Review of the Care plan that started on 10/04/2023 revealed that Resident #117 overall goal was established during the assessment process and expects to be discharged home with daughter. Review of progress notes…
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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, records review, and interviews. The facility failed to ensure medications were securely stored, as evidenced by fourteen loose pills and two half pills were found on one out of two medication carts checked. There were 120 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings included: On 02/13/2024 at 02:48 PM, during observation and interview with Staff A, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) on the third-floor medication cart two. Fourteen loose pills and two half pills were found. (photographic evidence). Staff A, LPN was asked: What is the facility's policy for checking and cleaning medications carts? Staff A LPN stated, The 11-7 shift cleans the cart and on weekends. I check the medications, check for expired meds, and that medications are up to date. I cleaned the cart. When I find loose pills. We dispose of them in the drug buster. In an Interview on 02/13/24 at 03:13 PM, the Nursing Supervisor was asked: What is the facility's policy for checking and cleaning medication carts? The nursing Supervisor stated: The Pharmacist was here…
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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the arbitration agreements presented to three residents (Resident number 70, Resident number 84, and Resident number 220) out of three residents reviewed informed residents or their representatives of the nature and implications of any proposed binding arbitration agreement, to inform their decision on whether or not to enter into such agreements. There were 120 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings included: Record review of the Binding Arbitration Agreements on facility letterhead documented the following: 1) The facility offers arbitration agreements; 2) The facility asks residents or their representatives to enter into an arbitration agreement, 3) The facility had residents who entered a binding agreement on or after 9/16/2019 and 4) The Admissions Coordinator is responsible for the binding arbitration agreements. Review of the facility Voluntary Arbitration Agreement documented the following: Resident number 70 signed and dated on 6/02/2020, Resident number 84 signed and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 ALLAIRE HEALTH SERVICES — 20 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 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 19 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALLARIAN HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/31/2023 |
| BIGGEST ROCK SNF IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/31/2023 |
| CAMDEN WV LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/31/2023 |
| HEALTHCARE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/31/2023 |
| THE ADAM SASOUNESS FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/31/2023 |
| THE DANA SASOUNESS FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/31/2023 |
| KURLAND, BENJAMIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/31/2023 |
| ALVAREZ, NORMA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/17/2024 |
| FRIED, BINYOMIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2023 |
| CANCIO, JUAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2023 |
| SUAREZ, JOSE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2023 |
| BERKOWITZ, BENJAMIN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% 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
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 105498. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-12, 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.