Jacksonville Rehabilitation And Nursing
5377 Moncrief Road, Jacksonville, FL 32209 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (904) 768-1506 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- a high number of inspection citations overall (20) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (66%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 fell from 3 to 2 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 | 9.8% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 12.0% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 27.0% | 4.6% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.1% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.8% | 14.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 4.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.0% | 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 | 25.8% | 8.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.0% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.0% | 9.1% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.11 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.91 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 72.0% 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 25 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 31% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 72.0% | 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 | 68.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 76.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | not 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 discharge | not 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 115.3 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 3.16 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.32 on weekdays — 5% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.31 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 66% is well above 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.
20 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-04-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, interviews, record review, and a review of facility in-service training, the facility failed to follow proper dish sanitation practices to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness, with the potential to affect all residents receiving food from the facility's kitchen. The facility also failed to log proper temperatures for the dish machine. Sanitation is important in health care settings serving nursing home residents. The findings include:On 04/27/2026 at 9:50 AM, during an interview with Dietary Aide (DA) C, she was asked if she was the person responsible for cleaning the residents' dishes and operating the facility's low-temperature dishwasher. She replied yes. She was asked to demonstrate her process for cleaning the dishes. She ran the dishwasher. The temperature on the machine's temperature gauge did not change and remained at 120 degrees Fahrenheit. She did not test the sanitation level. She did not record the temperature or the sanitation level on the dishwasher log. She was asked to demonstrate her process again. She asked if she could get another…
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 · E2026-04-30 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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, record reviews, and a review of the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to provide transfer/discharge notification to the Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman's office prior to or as soon as was practicable for eight (Residents #12, #115, #92, #64, #31, #25, #23 and #18) of 12 residents reviewed for transfer/discharge. Appropriate notification of the LTC Ombudsman's office provides added protection for residents from being inappropriately transferred or discharged , provides residents with access to an advocate who can inform them of their options and rights, and ensures that the LTC Ombudsman's office is aware of facility practices and activities related to transfers and discharges. The findings include:On 04/29/2026 at 10:00 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) provided a list of resident transfers/discharges for February 2026 and March 2026. On 04/29/2026 at 12:15 PM an email was received from the LTC Ombudsman's office confirming that there had been no Nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-30 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review and a review of the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to provide a nourishing, palatable, and well-balanced diet that met the daily nutritional and special dietary needs of its residents, taking into consideration their preferences, by failing to adhere to therapeutic diet orders for a pescatarian diet and follow standardized recipes and portion control in accordance with professional standards for food service. These practices affected nine residents/resident meal trays (Residents #86, #24, #39, #75, #88, #61, #73, #28 and #81) observed during meal service on 4/27/26 and 4/30/26 and placed all residents receiving food from the facility's kitchen at nutritional risk, potentially impairing their ability to heal and/or contributing to a decline in their overall health status. The findings Include:1.On 04/27/2026 during the lunchtime dining observation on the 300 hallways between 11:30 AM and 1:00 PM, Resident #86's meal tray revealed two vegetable servings and one fruit serving. Her meal ticket identified her diet…
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 · E2026-04-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, by failing to 1) Ensure nursing staff properly performed hand hygiene while working with three (Residents #93, #70 and #74) of six residents observed during medication administration, and 2) Ensure urinary catheter bags did not rest on the floor for one (Resident #107) of nine residents observed with urinary catheters. The findings include:1.During an observation of medication administration on 04/30/2026 at 7:55 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A proceeded to pull medications from the medication cart for Resident #93 then entered Resident #93's room without performing hand hygiene upon entering. LPN A administered Resident #93's medications and exited the resident's room without performing hand hygiene. Upon returning to her medication cart at 8:00 AM, she proceeded to pull medications from the cart for Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-30 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure that ten (Residents #20, #119, #129, #8, #110, #77, #62, #72, #87 and #120) of 66 residents sampled, had adequately equipped communication systems allowing them to call for staff assistance and relaying the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area from each resident's bedside. Failing to ensure each resident has a working call light for summoning staff when assistance is needed can result in preventable falls, increased pain and anxiety. The findings include:A tour of the facility began on 04/28/2026 at 11:32 AM. During the tour several call lights on the third floor were found to be inoperable (rooms 301A, 301B, 302A, 302B, 303B, 303C, 304A, 304B, 307A, 307B, 307B, 307B, 307C and 308B). The call light box for 308C was disconnected from the wall socket and there was no call light in room [ROOM NUMBER]C at 11:45 AM. (photographic evidence obtained)On 04/29/2026 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of…
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 · D2026-04-30 · 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
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment for one (Resident #62) of 24 residents reviewed for safety, was as free of accident hazards as was possible, by allowing hazardous, sharp objects to remain accessible in Resident #62's room without identified safety parameters, which could negatively impact Resident #62 or any other resident who entered the resident's room and accessed these objects. The findings include:On 04/27/2026 at 12:02 PM, a white Bible was observed on Resident #62's tray table containing a pair of scissors. A multi-colored pocketknife was observed on the resident's windowsill, as well as a pack of razors. (photographic evidence obtained)On 04/29/2026 at 10:30 AM, the same white Bible containing a pair of scissors was observed, along with a pack of razors, on the resident's windowsill. (photographic evidence obtained)On 04/29/2026 at 11:19 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Unit Manager S. She was asked about residents keeping sharp objects in their rooms. She asked…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, document review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to maintain the physical environment in a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment in 16 resident rooms (#201, #208, #209, #210, #214, #219, #302, #304, #305, #307, #308, #309, #310, #313, #315, and #321) affecting 40 out of 117 residents in the facility, as well as an industrial size fan running in the hallway on the second floor with dirt and dust stuck to it, and a wheelchair in disrepair with food particles in the hallway on the third-floor. These concerns could negatively impact residents' enjoyment of their environment as well as their safety. The findings include: A tour of the facility conducted on 05/08/2025 at 10:15 am revealed the following observations. 1. room [ROOM NUMBER] had black biological growth under the toilet rim. 2. room [ROOM NUMBER] had a dark stain inside the toilet bowl. 3. room [ROOM NUMBER] had a black biological film on the rails around glass of 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 · F2024-07-25 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
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 employ staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, by failing to employ either a certified dietary manager or a certified food service manager when a registered dietitian was not employed on a full-time basis. This had the potential to affect all of the residents in the facility. The findings include: A tour of the kitchen was conducted on 7/22/24 at 10:35 AM. The surveyor was greeted by Kitchen Manager O, who was asked if she was the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM). She stated she was the Kitchen Supervisor, not the CDM. She stated she would go get the CDM. She left and returned with Registered Dietitian (RD) P. RD P was asked if she was the CDM and she replied that she was not. Kitchen Manager O then asked, Well who's the CDM? During the interview, RD P stated she was in the facility three days a week. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 7/22/24 at 3:28 PM. She was asked to provide the dietary manager credentials 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 · Fcited before2024-07-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Expired buns were used during meal service, dietary staff were unable to explain how to test the dish machine, the dish machine test log was pre-dated with test results, the temperatures in the refrigerators in the 2nd and 3rd floor nourishment rooms were greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and an open, unlabeled, undated candy bar was discovered in the 3rd floor nourishment room refrigerator. This could potentially affect every resident residing in the facility. The findings include: An initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on 7/22/24 beginning at 10:35 AM. A dish machine was observed near the rear of the facility. There were three five-gallon buckets of dish sanitizing soaps and a gallon of bleach on the floor under the machine. One of the buckets was labeled Low Temp Dish Machine Sanitizer (Photographic evidence obtained) A label was affixed to the machine with operation requirements 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 · F2024-07-25 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition. The facility's high-temperature dish machine failed to reach the minimum final rinse temperature. This could potentially negatively affect all residents consuming meals from the facility's kitchen by exposing them to foodborne illnesses. The findings include: An initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on 7/22/24 beginning at 10:35 AM. A dish machine was observed near the rear of the facility. There were three five-gallon buckets of dish sanitizing soaps and a gallon of bleach on the floor under the machine. One of the buckets was labeled Low Temp Dish Machine Sanitizer (Photographic evidence obtained) A label was affixed to the machine with operation requirements for the model: HOT WATER SANITIZING: Final sanitizing rinse temperature: 180 degrees F (Fahrenheit); CHEMICAL SANITIZING: Final rinse minimum temperature 120 degrees F. (Photographic evidence obtained) At 11:15 AM, an interview was conducted with Kitchen…
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.
Show the remaining 10 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility record and policy review, the facility failed to maintain the physical environment in a safe, comfortable, and sanitary manner in eight (Rooms 215, 219, 221, 223, 302, 305, 318, and 319) of 46 rooms in the facility, as well as the 3rd floor elevator area. Door frames were not maintained structurally, a floorboard was raised near the 3rd floor elevator causing a tripping hazard, and holes in walls were identified as well as broken/missing floor tile. The facility also failed to maintain a comfortable and sanitary environment for one (Resident #87) of two residents reviewed for enteral feeding from a total survey sample of 35 residents, by leaving enteral nutrition product splattered and dried on the pump and pole throughout the survey. These concerns could affect residents' comfort and safety. The findings include: 1. On 7/22/24 at 1:48 PM, room [ROOM NUMBER]'s door frame to the bathroom was observed to be rusted and deteriorating at the bottom near the floor.…
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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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 document the basis for a resident's transfer to an acute care hospital, the specific resident needs that could not be met in the facility, and the service available at the acute care hospital to meet the resident's needs for one (Resident #118) of one hospitalized resident reviewed, from a total survey sample of 35 residents. The findings include: A review of Resident #118's medical record revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a transfer to the emergency room on 5/18/24. Her diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Further review of the record revealed no documentation of Resident #118's transfer/discharge or information having been provided to the acute care hospital. There was no documentation by the resident's physician of the basis for the transfer, resident needs that could not be met by the facility, or services available at the acute care hospital to meet her needs. Further review of the medical…
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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan, including measurable objectives and timeframes for two (Residents #66 and #113) of 35 residents in the total survey sample. This resulted in the facility having failed to provide Resident #66 with needed toenail care and having failed to change Resident #113's midline dressing, which could lead to pain, difficulty mobility and dressing for Resident #66, and potential infection and pain for Resident #113. The findings include: 1. A review of Resident #66's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with his most recent readmission on [DATE]. His diagnoses included seizures; viral hepatitis C without hepatic coma; personal history of TIA (transient ischemic attack - mini stroke); atherosclerotic heart disease; heart failure; protein-calorie malnutrition, and chronic kidney disease. A review of the 5-day minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE],…
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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that four (Residents #64, #99, #100, and #66) of 35 residents in the total survey sample, received the necessary care and services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene. The findings include: 1. On 7/22/24 at 1:18 PM, Resident #64 was observed lying in bed awake. His fingernails were elongated with brown debris under them. He was asked if he preferred his nails this length. He stated, No, of course not. He picked up nail clippers from his bedside table and stated, I have nail clippers. He was asked if he trimmed and cleaned his own fingernails. He stated, No,I can't do that. I need the staff to trim them for me. He tossed the nail clippers back on the bedside table. On 7/23/24 at 11:00 AM, Resident #64 was observed lying in bed awake. He was asked if any staff had offered to trim his fingernails. He stated no and showed his hands. He was asked for permission to measure…
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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure physician-ordered medication was available and provided to one (Resident #18) of 35 residents in the total survey sample. The findings include: On 7/24/24 at 9:40 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A was observed during medication administration. As she prepared medications for Resident #18, she stated the Prozac 60 mg (milligrams) ordered daily at 9:00 AM and due for administration at this time was not available in the medication cart. She stated the medication was on order from the pharmacy and it would be on the next pharmacy delivery. A 7/25/24 review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the Prozac 60 mg ordered daily for Resident #18 was not administered on 7/23/24 or 7/24/24. In an interview with Unit Manager C on 7/25/24 at 9:05 AM, she was asked what the facility's system for back-up medications was. She stated the facility had a Pyxis machine for medications needed on admission or when medications had not been delivered yet. She was asked…
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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. Two errors were identified from 25 opportunities for error, resulting in a medication error rate of 8%, affecting two (Residents #18 and #52) of eight residents observed during medication administration from a total survey sample of 35 residents. The findings include: 1. On 7/24/24 at 9:40 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A was observed during medication administration. As she prepared medications for Resident #18, she stated the Prozac 60 mg (milligrams) ordered daily at 9:00 AM and due for administration at this time was not available in the medication cart. She stated the medication was on order from the pharmacy and it would be on the next pharmacy delivery. A 7/25/24 review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the Prozac 60 mg ordered daily for Resident #18 was not administered on 7/23/24 or 7/24/24. In an interview with Unit Manager C on 7/25/24 at 9:05 AM, she was asked what 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 · Fcited before2022-07-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by 1) Failing to ensure the dishwashing machine reached appropriate temperatures, 2) Failing to ensure the refrigerator and freezer maintained appropriate temperatures, 3) Failing to ensure food temperatures were recorded daily, and 4) Failing to ensure the facility's nourishment rooms were maintained per requirements. The findings include: 1. On 7/11/22 at 10:54 AM, a tour of kitchen was conducted. At 11:07 AM, Dietary Aide H was observed using the dishwashing machine and was asked what type of machine it was. Dietary Aide H stated it was a high-temperature machine. She was asked what temperature it should reach when washing dishes and she stated, The final rinse should be 180 º F (Fahrenheit). When asked about the wash cycle temperature, Dietary Aide H stated, I'm not sure. I don't know. During this time, an observation was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-07-14 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — patternEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents fed by enteral means received appropriate treatment and services for two (Residents #100 and #70) of two residents reviewed who were receiving enteral nutrition from a total of 20 residents in the sample. The findings include: 1. An observation was made of Resident #100 on 7/11/22 at 2:55 PM. Her tube feeding rate was set at 50 ml per hour. An observation was made of Resident #100 on 7/12/22 at 1:30 PM. Her tube feeding rate was again set at 50 ml per hour with a water flush every four hours. An observation on 7/13/22 at 9:30 AM revealed the tube feeding pump rate was set at 50 ml per hour with a water flush every 4 hours. (Photographic evidence obtained) An observation on 7/14/22 at 10:26 AM revealed a tube feeding rate of 50 ml per hour and a water flush of 250 ml every four hours. A record review was conducted for Resident #100, revealing an admission date of 5/25/22 and diagnoses including encephalopathy,…
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 · D2022-07-14 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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 identify resident preferences consistent with residents' food allergies to meet the needs of one resident (#36) reviewed from a total sample of 20 residents. The findings include: During an interview with Resident #36 on 7/11/22 at 12:52 PM, she reported she was allergic to apples and pineapples but the kitchen kept sending pineapples and apples on her meal trays. At the time of the interview, a pineapple cup was observed on Resident #36's lunch tray. (Photographic evidence obtained) On 7/11/2022 at 12:54 PM, observation of Resident #36's lunch meal ticket, dated 7/11/2022 read, Note: no apple, no pineapples. (Photographic evidence obtained) On 7/11/2022 at 2:24 PM, a Medical Nutrition Therapy note revealed Resident #36's current diet consisted of: Pureed diet, honey-thickened liquids; Allergies: pineapple, apple; Food preferences (likes): banana, macaroni and cheese. On 7/13/2022 at 4:01 PM during an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant E, she stated she verified resident plates and tray tickets before…
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 · D2022-07-14 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain resident medical records that were complete and accurately documented for one (Resident #36) of five residents reviewed for nutrition and hydration services from a total sample of 20 residents. (Residents #36). The findings include: A review of the Nutrition Consult, dated 7/6/22, found that Resident #36 was documented as currently receiving the following supplement: House supplement 180 ml (milliliters) two times daily by mouth for meals and recommendation to increase house supplement to 180 ml three times daily. A review of the resident's Physician's Orders found that on 7/6/22, she was ordered a house supplement three times a day: Readycare 2.0, 180 ml and add thickening powder to reach a honey-thickened consistency. A review of Resident #36's July 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR), revealed: House Supplement three times a day, Readycare 2.0 180 ml TID (three times daily) and add thickening powder to reach a honey-thickened consistency. Start date 7/6/2022 at 5:00 p.m. Documentation verifying 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.
“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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
About 84% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in FL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Florida Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 105138. 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.