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

Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center

5888 Blanding Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32244 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (904) 772-1220 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Oct 20232 immediate-jeopardy citations$21,921 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Oct 2023
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • the CMS record shows $21,921 in federal fines (most recent 2023-12-26)
  • its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
5500 Blanding Blvd · (904) 379-2540 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
5452 Blanding Blvd · (904) 779-6990 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
IGA0.3 mi
5435 Blanding Blvd · (904) 652-1640 · Call to confirm hours
Park
6131 105th St · (904) 777-3300 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
5829 Blanding Blvd · (904) 778-4875

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased6.4%8.7%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.9%5.5%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.7%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.8%4.6%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.0%2.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened3.9%9.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication48.9%14.4%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%99.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.1%4.5%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control7.7%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 table36.4%8.6%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication5.7%1.5%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission20.6%26.1%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit7.8%9.1%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.522.131.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.861.151.80better

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.

41.6% 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 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

41.6%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.4%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
63.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.25U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.13hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 63.8% 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 58 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 34% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF41.6%CMS range 31.0–54.551.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.4%CMS range 8.2–16.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge63.8%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge56.9%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge58.6%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified98.6%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.1%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.7%CMS range 4.4–12.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.251.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.23
RN hours/ resident / day
0.89
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.01
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.14
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.14
RN hoursweekends
30.8%
Total nursing turnover
28.6%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 117.5 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.14 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.23 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 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 3.01 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.19 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.27 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

0
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-30)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2024-08-09)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2023-10-17 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, resident and facility record reviews, and a review of the facility's policies titled Reporting Abuse to Facility Management (Revised February 2014), Elopements (revised February 2014), and the facility's Elopement Drill Process/Missing Resident Process, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from neglect, by failing to provide supervision and interventions to maintain resident safety, prevent elopement (a resident who is incapable of adequately protecting themself, who leaves the facility unsupervised and undetected), and minimize the risk of injury or death. This resulted in one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for elopement risk, departing the facility unescorted and remaining missing from the facility from 1:58 p.m. on 10/11/23 until approximately 4:00 a.m. the following morning (10/12/23), when located by the Sheriff's Office lying on a street, rain soaked, missing his shoes, with multiple abrasions, approximately four (4) miles away from the facility. 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · J2023-10-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, resident and facility record reviews, a review of the facility's policy titled Elopements (revised February 2014), and the facility's Elopement Drill Process/Missing Resident Process, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided supervision and interventions to maintain safety, prevent elopement (a resident who is incapable of adequately protecting themself, who leaves the facility unsupervised and undetected), and minimize the risk of injury or death. This resulted in one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for elopement risk, departing the facility unescorted and remaining missing from the facility from 1:58 p.m. on 10/11/23 until approximately 4:00 a.m. the following morning (10/12/23), when located by the Sheriff's Office lying on a street, rain soaked, missing his shoes, with multiple abrasions, approximately four (4) miles away from the facility. On 6/6/23, Resident #1 was admitted to the facility's locked memory care unit due to exit-seeking behavior and 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-08-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on facility record review, staff interview, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive water management program for the purpose of reducing the risk of growth and spread of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in the facility's water system for its current census of 116 residents. Residents of nursing homes who may suffer from a weakened immune system, chronic lung disease, or other underlying medical conditions such as immunosuppression, are at risk for Legionnaires' Disease (type of pneumonia) if exposed to Legionella bacteria. Facilities must be able to demonstrate their measures to minimize the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in building water systems such as by having a documented water management program that must be based on nationally accepted standards. The program must include an assessment to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens could grow and spread; measures to prevent the growth of opportunistic waterborne pathogens (control measures), 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-08-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure 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 observations, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Proper sanitation is important in health care settings to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness. Nursing home residents are at risk for serious complications from foodborne illness due to their already compromised health status, and standing water, biofilm, and pests such as gnats and roaches are sources of contamination. The findings include: A kitchen tour was conducted on 8/6/24 at 10:24 AM. The facility's oven was opened for observation and two roaches were observed crawling inside. Standing water was observed in the drain located in the cook area in front of the steamer. A small drain on the floor in front of walk-in refrigerator was observed to be uncovered and filled with a biofilm slime-like substance around the lip of the drain. Gnats were observed moving around the lip of the uncovered drain. (Photographic evidence obtained) During a follow-up visit to 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-08-09 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — pattern
    Keep all essential equipment working safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in safe operating condition. The kitchen's freezer door would not close properly, leaving the possibility open for potential thawing or partial thawing of frozen food items. This could result in the outbreak of foodborne illness affecting residents who receive food from the facility's kitchen. The findings include: A kitchen tour was conducted on 8/6/24 at 10:24 AM. The walk-in freezer door, located inside the walk-in refrigerator, would not close completely after several attempts to push the door closed to exit back into the walk-in refrigerator. Another observation was made on 8/8/24 at 10:25 AM of the walk-in freezer located inside the walk-in refrigerator. The door was not closed completely and would not close completely. (Photographic evidence obtained) During a follow-up visit to the kitchen on 8/8/24 at 10:45 AM, another observation was made of the walk-in freezer door not closing completely after several attempts to push the door closed.…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-08-09 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — pattern
    Make sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
    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, resident and staff interviews, facility pest control management documentation, and a review of the facility's policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure that its pest control service was effective. Cockroaches were observed in four (Rooms 120, 118, 121, and 117) of 66 resident rooms (all on the South Unit), at one (South Unit) of two nurses' stations, and in the kitchen. An ineffective pest control program can result in the transmission of disease/infection. The findings include: From 8/6/24 through 8/9/24, tours of the facility were conducted at various times. Live cockroaches were observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 8/6/24 at 10:47 AM. (Photographic evidence obtained). Live cockroaches were observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 8/6/24 at 11:03 AM. (Photographic evidence obtained) Live cockroaches were observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 8/6/24 at 11:34 AM. (Photographic evidence obtained) Live cockroaches were observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 8/7/24 at 9:14 AM. (Photographic evidence…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-09 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that four (Residents #169, #93, #81 and #102) residents from a total survey sample of 32 residents, were provided a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Each resident was missing a pillowcase. The findings include: On 8/6/24 at 10:57 AM, an observation was made of Resident #169 resting in bed with his eyes closed. His head was resting on a pillow without a pillowcase. On 8/6/24 at 11:13 AM, an observation was made of Resident #93's bed linens. He was missing a pillowcase. The resident was not present to interview. On 8/6/24 at 11:51 AM, an observation was made of Resident #81's bed linen, which was missing a pillowcase. The resident was interviewed and explained that he had not had a pillowcase in a while but could not remember exactly how many days he went without a pillowcase. He further explained that he previously asked facility staff for a pillowcase and was not provided one. He said it bothered him that he was sleeping on a bare pillow. On 8/6/24 at 1:58 PM, an observation of the 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-09 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolated
    Make 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to maintain the physical environment in a sanitary and comfortable manner based on the following: holes in walls, missing base cove molding, and broken and missing closet door panels in four (Rooms 120, 118, 121, and 117) of 66 resident rooms, all of which were located on the South Unit of the facility. These concerns could negatively impact residents' enjoyment of their environment as well as their safety. The findings include: From 8/6/24 through 8/9/24, tours of the facility were conducted at various times. room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on 8/6/24 at 10:47 AM with wall damage behind the toilet in the bathroom and missing pieces of the closet door panels. (Photographic evidence obtained) room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on 8/6/24 at 11:03 AM with wall damage and base cove molding damage under the A-bed, a gap in the base cove molding under the air conditioner, and wall damage the length of the air conditioning…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-17 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    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 a staff interview and a review of facility records, the facility failed to timely report an incident of neglect within 24 hours of the time Administration became aware of the incident. The incident involved the facility staff's failure to properly supervise a resident at risk for elopement. The resident left the facility undetected at 1:58 p.m. on 10/11/23 and was not identified as missing until dinner trays were passed approximately 3.5 hours later. Administration was made aware of the missing resident on 10/11/23 at 5:37 p.m., however, the incident was not reported as required until 10/12/23 at 7:50 p.m. The findings include: A review of facility camera footage for 10/11/23 revealed that Resident #1 walked out of the facility on 10/11/23 at 1:58 p.m. On 10/11/23 at 5:37 p.m., facility staff notified the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) that Resident #1 was unaccounted for and a Code Green (facilities internal code that is announced over the paging system to announce a resident is missing)…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-07-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, by failing to contact the physician for a blood glucose reading of Hi for one (Resident #55) of seven residents observed during medication administration, from a total of 34 residents in the sample. The findings include: On 7/19/22 at 11:29 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A was observed performing point-of-care blood glucose testing for Resident #55. After obtaining a blood sample, the blood glucose monitor (BGM) read HI. LPN A prepared the resident's Novolog (insulin) flexpen to administer 12 units subqutaneously. When asked if there was a facility protocol requiring the nurse to notify the physician for blood glucose results that read HI, LPN A stated no, the nursing staff just cover with the insulin. She stated she would notify the resident's physician of the HI reading. Further review of the medical record revealed an active 10/6/2020 physician's order for Novolog Flexpen (insulin),…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-07-21 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented for one (Resident #55) of seven residents observed during medication administration, from a total of 34 residents in the sample. The findings include: On 7/19/22 at 11:29 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A was observed performing point-of-care blood glucose testing for Resident #55. A review of Resident #55's July 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR), revealed injection sites were not documented. On 7/19/22 at 12:17 PM, LPN A was observed documenting the administration of Resident #55's insulin. A review of the July 2022 MAR revealed no injection site was documented. On 7/20/22 at 12:45 AM, an interview was conducted with LPN/Unit Manager B. She stated the only injectable medication nursing documented the injection site for was Levemir (insulin). They did not document an injection site for Novolog (insulin) or other injectable medications. She stated the surveyor should ask the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$21,921 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $4,368 — penalty dated 2023-12-26
  • $17,553 — penalty dated 2023-10-17

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to ELIYAHU MIRLIS — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 52.1-0.1 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.0≈ chain avg
Staffing 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.2+0.8 vs chain
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
5888 BLANDING BLVD JACKSONVILLE HOLDCO LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 08/01/2023
MIRLIS, ELIYAHUIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST65%since 08/01/2023
VRD 10 HLDCO LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 08/01/2023
BECHER, SARAHIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 08/01/2023
COOKE, GARYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2023
TRAN, PHUCIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$5.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+0.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$220K
Related-party expense4% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 76%Medicare 19%Other / private 5%

About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $220K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$300per resident / day
operating cost
$9,119per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$301per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in FL

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Florida Medicaid page.

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

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 105721. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-30, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next