River City Nursing And Rehab Center
15480 Max Leggett Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32218 · For profit - Corporation · 116 certified beds · (904) 321-1909 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.0% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.6% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.4% | 0.7% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.8% | 4.6% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.4% | 2.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.1% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.9% | 14.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.7% | 4.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.3% | 10.5% | 21.2% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 0.5% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.4% | 26.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.02 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.77 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
67.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 427 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 293 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 0.57 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 67.3%CMS range 62.7–71.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.0%CMS range 11.5–17.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 64.5% | 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 | 70.3% | 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 | 65.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 99.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.2% | 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 | 2.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.3%CMS range 4.5–9.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 116 beds and averages 104.8 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.96 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.98 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.28 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 3.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.14 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.18 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-02-26 · 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 kitchen food service observations, staff interviews, facility document review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food handling practices to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness, with the potential to affect all residents who consumed foods from the facility, by failing to label and date mark an open beverage found in the 400 hallways nourishment room. Additionally observed were open bundles of bread in the cook area storage bin. Food handling and sanitation are important in health care settings serving nursing home residents. Unsafe food handling practices represent a potential source of pathogen exposure.The findings include:During an observation of the 400 hallways nourishment room on 2/25/26 at 12:53 PM, an open 1.18-liter bottle of Starbucks Vanilla Latte with no date marking was observed. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) L was immediately notified and instructed to remove or properly label the item. (Photographic evidence obtained)On 2/26/26 at 1:02 PM, a re-inspection of the 400 hallways nourishment room…
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 · D2026-02-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to implement interventions identified in the comprehensive care plan for two (Residents #31 and #3) of 32 residents in the total survey sample. Resident #31 had no floor mat at bedside as per the physician's order and her care plan. Resident #3 had no pillow supporting her left elbow as per the physician's order and her care plan. Failing to follow these residents' care plans could result in falls with injuries, worsening of pressure areas, increased pain, and overall functional decline. The findings include:1.A review of Resident #31's medical record revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal column spaces placing pressure on the nerves that travel through it), hemiplegia (paralysis of one vertical side of the body often causing trunk muscle control loss, including limpness or spasticity), polyneuropathy (widespread, simultaneous dysfunction of multiple…
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 · D2024-04-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and record review, the facility failed to ensure dignity while dining for two (Residents #94 and 54) of two residents reviewed for dignity. The findings include: 1. On 04/24/24 at 8:18 AM, an observation was made of Resident #94 during her breakfast meal. She was lying in bed with her plate uncovered and the plate cloche cover lying on her bed. She was unable to eat her meal without staff assistance. Further observation revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) D entering the resident's room at 8:43 AM to assist her with eating. CNA D was observed standing over Resident #94 while assisting her with her meal. Resident #94's tray sat uncovered for 25 minutes before she was assisted by staff. A review of Resident #94's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/10/23 and a medical history significant for stroke, right-sided paralysis, difficulty swallowing, and weakness. A review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, completed on 01/16/24, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of one out of 15 possible…
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 · D2024-04-25 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight, by failing to provide nutritional interventions in a timely manner for two (Residents #54 and #94) of two residents reviewed for nutritional status, resulting in significant weight loss. The findings include: 1. During a tour of the facility on 04/23/24 at 8:59 AM, Resident #54 was observed eating her breakfast while lying in bed. She had difficulty holding her spoon while eating her pureed food. A moderate amount of food was present on the cloth clothing protector which was worn over her shirt. She also had a Mighty Shake nutritional supplement on her tray which was untouched. Resident #54 consumed approximately 15% of her meal tray. A review of Resident #54's medical record revealed an admission on [DATE] and a medical history significant for stroke, right-sided paralysis, Parkinson's disease, difficulty swallowing, and weakness. An admission…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments with access granted only to authorized personnel for one (Resident #45) of one resident reviewed for medication storage. The findings include: During a tour of the facility on 04/22/24 at 1:00 PM, Resident #45's room was entered and a medication cup containing seven (7) medication tablets was observed sitting unattended on the bedside table. (Photographic evidence obtained) Further observation revealed an individual entering Resident #45's room. An interview was conducted with this individual on 04/22/24 at 1:37 PM. She stated she was Resident #45's private duty aide. She further stated the nurse brought the observed medications into Resident #45's room around breakfast time, and that this was not the first time the nursing staff had left medications for her to administer to Resident #45. When asked, the private duty aide stated she was not a certified medication technician, she was a certified nursing assistant. When asked to clarify…
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 before2022-04-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure safe and secure storage (including limited access and mechanisms to minimize loss or diversion) of all medications, with the potential of affecting all residents, related to staff not ensuring one (St. [NAME] nursing unit (rooms 300/400) of two treatment carts containing medications was locked when not in use and unattended. The findings include: On 4/10/22 at 12:10 p.m., an observation was made of an unlocked and unattended treatment cart on the St. [NAME] nursing unit (rooms 300/400). The same cart was observed unlocked and unattended at 1:53 p.m. The second drawer was opened, and multiple bags of medications with resident labels were observed. There was no staff observed in the area. (Photographic evidence obtained) On 4/11/22 at 11:15 a.m. and at 4:38 p.m., this same treatment cart on the St. [NAME] nursing unit (rooms 300/400) was observed unlocked and unattended. (Photographic evidence obtained at 4:38 p.m.)…
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 · D2022-04-14 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident had the right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care for one (Resident #23) of 42 residents sampled. The findings include: A review of Resident #23's record revealed he was initially admitted on [DATE]. After being transferred to the hospital on 4/6/2022, he was last readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included atherosclerosis of native arteries of extremities with gangrene, acquired absence of left leg above knee, acquired absence of right leg above knee, polyneuropathy, congestive heart failure, malignant neoplasm of the colon, and memory deficit following cerebral infarction. A review of the Progress Notes in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that Resident #23 was alert and oriented with some confusion but was able to make his needs known. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed on 1/26/2022, Resident #23 scored 9 out of a possible 15…
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 · D2022-04-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for one (Resident #86) of a sample of 42 residents. The findings include: On 04/10/22 at 12:56 p.m., two bottles of Systane eye drops were observed on Resident #86's bedside table. The resident was asked if she administered the eye drops herself. She stated yes. She stated, I have my family buy them for me because it's a larger bottle and I am able to use it, even with my arthritis. She was asked when she used the eye drops. She stated, I use them when my eyes are itchy and scratchy, and then I don't have to wait for the nurse. She was asked if staff were aware that she had the eye drops on her bedside table. She stated yes. She was asked how long she had kept the eye drops at her bedside. She stated, As long as I've been here. She was asked again whether she kept the eye drops on her bedside table and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-04-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one (Resident #251) of three residents with an indwelling catheter, from a total of 42 sampled residents, received appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI). The findings include: On 4/10/22 at 2:35 PM, cloudy urine in a urinary catheter bag dated 1/18/22 was observed. Resident #251 could not recall when it was last changed. During another observation of Resident #251 on 4/12/22 at 12:30 PM, cloudy urine was observed in his urinary catheter bag dated 1/18/22. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident #251 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of hydrocephalus. Other diagnoses included presence of urogenital implants. A review of the active physician's orders revealed an order for Suprapubic catheter - change as needed as a whole system with drainage bag French (Fr) 20 balloon 10 ml (milliliters). Suprapubic catheter care: Cleanse stoma with soap and water,…
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 · D2022-04-14 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that two (Resident #72 and Resident #43) of 16 residents receiving respiratory care, for a total sample of 42 residents, received oxygen as ordered. The findings include: 1. On 4/10/22 at 1:20 PM, Resident #72's oxygen flow rate was set at 3 Liters per minute (L/min). (Photographic evidence obtained) On 4/12/22 at 9:26 AM, an observation of Resident #72 revealed her oxygen canula was dated 4/11/22 and her oxygen flow rate was set at 3 Liters per minute (L/min). (Photographic evidence obtained) On 4/13/22 at 9:03 AM, Resident #72's oxygen flow rate was set at 3 Liters per minute (L/min). (Photographic evidence obtained) A review of the medical record revealed that Resident #72 was admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), unspecified; bilateral; generalized anxiety disorder; and polyneuropathy, unspecified. Active physician's orders included: Oxygen via nasal cannula continuous at 2…
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HILL, JEFFREY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/17/2020 |
| KIM, KEITH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 15% | since 06/17/2020 |
| SELL, JERRIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 15% | since 06/17/2020 |
| WILSON, JOHN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 9% | since 06/17/2020 |
| FIRST COAST HEALTH MANAGERS, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| FOODONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC. | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| GANDT VENTURES, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| M.J.I. LOGISTICS, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| MEERAJ 1, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| SHARPE ESTATES, INC. | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| SHARPE FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LTD | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| THE TM FAMILY #2, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| ADERHOLD, MARY | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| BENOIT, RICHARD | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| CADE, ROBIN | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| CARON, KAREN | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| DETERS, SHERRY | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| DETERS-SMITH, GRETCHEN | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| GRIFFITH, EDWARD | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| KRUEGER, ROSS | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| ROTHSTEIN, MITCHELL | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| SELL, STEVEN | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2024 |
| STEPP, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| STEPP, LAWANNA | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| STEPP, VOYNE | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/17/2020 |
| SYNOVOUS BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 11/16/2018 |
| ACTIVE CARE MANAGERS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/30/2025 |
| MORAN-BURRELL, IVONNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2024 |
| DOWLING, EVELENA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/20/2021 |
| SHARPE, MICHAEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/17/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 38 rows in the source record cover these 30 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
10 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $722K 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
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 106142. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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.