Vivo Healthcare Normandy
8495 Normandy Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32221 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (904) 783-3749 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 4.7% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.4% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 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 | 13.8% | 4.6% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 0.3% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.0% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.4% | 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 | 7.4% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| 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 | 7.5% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 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 | 17.8% | 26.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.0% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.81 | 2.13 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.84 | 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.
60.0% 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 98 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 58.5% 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 82 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 0.50 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 81% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 60.0%CMS range 51.4–67.8 | 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 | 9.6%CMS range 6.5–13.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 58.5% | 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 | 54.9% | 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 | 42.7% | 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 | 85.8% | 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 | 79.4% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 92.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.2%CMS range 4.3–10.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 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 113.0 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 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 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.50 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.49 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-18 · 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, and a review of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to follow proper food safety sanitation standards and food handling practices to prevent potential injury and the potential outbreak of foodborne illness to residents by failing to serve meals using dinnerware in clean and good condition. 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 that can compromise residents' well-being. This failure had the potential to affect all residents who consumed food from the facility's kitchen. The findings include: A follow-up tour of the kitchen was conducted on 12/16/2025 at 11:00 a.m. Cracked plates and plates with food debris stuck on them were observed and pulled from the tray line. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) On 12/18/2025 at 9:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with [NAME] V. She was asked who was responsible for ensuring dinnerware and utensils were clean and in good…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and a review of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure food served was prepared by methods that conserved nutritive value and appearance by failing to follow standardized recipes to provide appetizing and appealing food in accordance with professional standards for food service. Residents at nutritional and hydration risk could be affected, potentially impacting their ability to heal, and possibly resulting in an overall health status decline. The findings include: During a follow-up tour of the kitchen on 12/16/2025 at 11:00 a.m., Employee V was observed as the cook on the tray line. During an observation of the tray line at this time, pureed meal components of savory based chicken, fluffy rice, seasoned spinach, and a white roll were observed smeared on the plate with no shape or consistent form. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) On 12/18/2025 at 9:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with [NAME] V. She was asked who was responsible for preparing pureed food. She replied, The Cook. When asked what was used to show cooks…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-18 · 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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to update comprehensive care plans to accurately reflect residents' current status related to intravenous access (Resident #30), skin condition (Resident #60), and Life Vest (Resident #139) for three of 22 residents reviewed for care plan development, implementation and revision. The findings include:1. During an observation on 12/16/2025 at 10:15 a.m., Resident #30 was observed with a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line to his right upper inner arm. The area was observed to be clean and dry with a dressing dated 12/16/2025. During an interview on 12/16/2025 at 10:15 a.m., Resident #30 stated, They just changed the dressing this morning. I think I've got until 12/24/2025 for my last dose [of intravenous antibiotics]. During an observation on 12/18/2025 at 8:00 a.m., Resident #30 was observed with a PICC line to his right upper inner arm. During an interview on 12/18/2025 at 9:30 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E stated,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-18 · 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, interviews, record reviews and a review of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure adequate grooming for one resident (#116) who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) independently, out of four residents reviewed for ADLs, from a total survey sample of 39 residents. Failure to provide assistance with ADLs can result in resident discomfort and negatively impact a resident's feelings of self-worth. The findings include: A review of the medical record revealed that Resident #116 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a need for assistance with personal care, Myasthenia Gravis without (acute) exacerbation, Encephalopathy and Seizures. On 12/15/2025 at 11:10 a.m., Resident #116 was observed in bed with excessively long hair on his face. He was asked if he was able to shave himself or if the staff shaved him. He stated, The staff shaves me. He was asked when the last time was that he recalled being shaved. He replied, a couple…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide residents treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident #11) of two residents reviewed for wound care and for one (Resident #129) of one resident reviewed for positioning/mobility, from a total survey sample of 39 residents.The findings include: 1.On 12/16/2025 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #11 was observed with a dressing to his right lower leg dated 12/10/2025. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) On 12/17/2025 at 12:20 p.m., Resident #11 was observed with a dressing to his right lower leg dated 12/10/2025. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) On 12/18/2025 at 8:10 a.m., Resident #11 was observed with a dressing to his right lower leg dated 12/10/2025. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) During an interview on 12/18/2025 at 8:10 a.m., Resident #11 stated, I banged my leg in therapy. I can't remember when they changed it (the dressing). During an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a pressure ulcer received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent infection for one (Resident #99) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcer care and treatment.The findings include:During an observation on 12/18/2025 at 9:30 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) D/Wound Care Nurse, prepared to change the ordered dressing to Resident #99's sacral pressure wound. Resident #99 positioned herself on her left side in preparation for the dressing change. Upon positioning with the sacral and gluteal area exposed, it was observed that there was a dark brown substance present, beginning at the top of the gluteal cleft and extending down to the bottom of the cleft. There was a fecal odor present. RN D cleaned the wound using wound cleanser, placed a new treatment and dressing over the sacral wound, refastened the resident's brief, and instructed her to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to appropriately document the correct location of the Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line in five of 14 daily chart notes for one (Resident #30) of eight residents reviewed for required resident record components, from a total survey sample of 39 residents.The findings include:During an observation on 12/16/2025 at 10:15 a.m., Resident #30 was observed with a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line to his upper inner right arm. The area was observed to be clean and dry with a dressing dated 12/16/2025.During an interview on 12/16/2025 at 10:15 a.m., Resident #30 stated, They just changed the dressing this morning. I think I've got until 12/24/2025 for my last dose [of intravenous antibiotics].During an observation on 12/18/2025 at 8:00 a.m., Resident #30 was observed with a PICC line to his right upper inner arm. During an interview on 12/18/2025 at 9:30 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E stated, His [Resident #30] PICC line…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility observations, interviews, and a review of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable homelike environment for residents, by failing to ensure separate rooms for resident showers and equipment storage for the 32 residents residing on the 100 hallways, from a total facility census of 110 residents. This had the potential to put residents at risk for infection, compromised dignity and privacy, and physical harm. The findings include: On 12/16/2025 at 9:44 a.m., a storage sign was observed on the 100 hallways' resident shower room door. When the door was opened, mechanical lifts were observed stored in the room. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) On 12/17/2025 at 10:34 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) S was asked why the storage sign was posted on the 100 hallways' shower room door. She stated she did not know why it was on the door, as this was a shower room. On 12/17/2025 at 10:35 a.m., the same storage sign was posted on the 100 hallways' resident shower room door, the shower room that was being used 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 before2022-02-03 · 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 the kitchen food service observations, nourishment room 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 of the residents in the facility when the walk-in cooler, a reach-in cooler, juice dispensing equipment and nourishment rooms were not regularly cleaned, and the floors were not maintained. Dietary staff also failed to implement the proper procedures for hand hygiene, disposable glove use and proper sanitation practices by failing to change contaminated gloves and wash their hands between glove changes during the lunch meal service. Hand hygiene, food handling and sanitation is important in health care settings serving nursing home residents due to the risk of serious complications from foodborne illness as a result of their compromised health status. Unsafe food handling practices represent a potential source of pathogen exposure. The findings include: During 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 · D2022-02-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, and provide maintenance services as necessary for residents in five (Rooms 106, 202, 402, 407 and 204) of six rooms identified with environmental concerns from a total of 62 resident rooms. The findings include: On 01/31/22 at 12:40 PM, room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a clogged bathroom sink that was not draining. On 01/31/22 at 11:02 AM, while touring with the Maintenance Director, three roaches were observed in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom sink. The Maintenance Director removed them with a paper towel. He stated pest control was on-site once a month and any time pests were sighted in the facility. He added that pest control would be contacted again. He also confirmed that the sink was clogged and stated he would fix it. On 02/01/22 at 11:24 AM, Resident #391 in room [ROOM NUMBER] stated the phone at his bedside was broken and so was the phone for the adjacent bed. He…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-02-03 · 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, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to 1) Implement the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident #145) when the physician-ordered, pressure-reducing foam boots for her heels were not applied, and 2) Implement the comprehensive person-centered care plan for two (Residents #26 and #29) when oxygen flow rates were not set at the physician-ordered liters per minute. Seven residents were being treated for pressure ulcers and 10 residents were receiving respiratory therapy from a total of 30 sampled residents. Failure to implement the care plan puts the resident at risk of not receiving appropriate interventions and could potentiate medical or physical complications and/or injury. The findings include: 1. During an interview with Resident #145 on 01/31/2022 at 2:00 PM, she was observed lying in bed with her covers on. She was lying on her right side. She stated she had a pressure ulcer on her…
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 before2022-02-03 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews and a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure for Nail Care, the facility failed to provide nail care for one (Resident #65) of 30 sampled residents who was dependent for activities of daily living. The findings include: An observation was conducted of Resident #65 on 02/01/22 at 10:02 a.m. She was lying in her bed and the thumb nail on her left hand was curling under with all nails approximately one and half inches or longer. The left hand was kept closed and the nails were close to digging into the palm of her hand. The resident could open her right hand, but her nails were one and half inches or longer. Resident #65 was confused but could answer simple questions. She replied yes when asked if she felt her nails needed to be cut. She also replied yes when asked if staff could cut them. Observations was conducted of Resident #65 on 02/02/22 at 10:11 a.m. and on 02/03/22 at 10:08 a.m. Her nails remained the same. A medical record review was conducted on 02/01/22, which noted an admission date of 05/29/12 with diagnoses including adult…
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 · D2022-02-03 · 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 a resident who needed respiratory care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for three (Residents #26, #29 and #391) of 10 residents receiving respiratory therapy from a total of 30 sampled residents. The findings include: 1. On 02/01/2022 at 11:08 AM, Resident #26 was observed sitting up in bed in her room. Her oxygen (O2) flow rate was set at 2.5 liters per minute (LPM). The resident was asked what the O2 flow rate should be set at, and she replied that she didn't know. On 02/02/2022 at 2:16 PM, Resident #26 was observed sitting up in a wheelchair in her room. Her O2 flow rate was set at 2 LPM. On 02/02/2022 at 2:44 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) J confirmed the order for Resident #26's O2 flow rate was 3 LPM via nasal cannula. He stated the 11 PM - 7 AM shift nursing staff was responsible for changing the O2 tubing. He also reported…
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 · D2022-02-03 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, facility document review and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure a member of the Interdisciplinary Team was designated to coordinate the hospice care and obtain a plan of care and physician's certification form from the hospice provider before hospice care was furnished to one (Resident #143) of two residents receiving hospice care, from a total of 30 residents in the sample. The findings include: Resident #143 was observed on 01/31/2022 at 1:32 PM lying in her bed. The hospice provider's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) was in the room with her. She was calling out in pain, Too much pain, too much pain. Please take the pain away. It's too much, it's too much. During an interview with the hospice provider's APRN on 01/31/2022 at 1:45 PM, he stated he was in the facility seeing Resident #143 today for the first time. He did not know her well yet. He was aware that she was in a lot of pain and was adjusting her…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to VIVO HEALTHCARE — 12 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 1.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 11 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JACKSONVILLE 3 NORMANDY OPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/09/2022 |
| AB MARBEC REALTY GROUP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 09/09/2022 |
| JEK IRRV TR II | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 13% | since 09/09/2022 |
| NMJ IRRV TR II | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 13% | since 09/09/2022 |
| CUKIER, BROCHA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 09/09/2022 |
| GLUCK, BENJAMIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 09/09/2022 |
| JACOBOWITZ, JUDAH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 09/09/2022 |
| JACKSONVILLE 3 PROPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| NORMANDY PROPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| CUKIER, JOSEF | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| FRIEDLAND, SHALOM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| JAKOBOVITS, NATHAN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/19/2025 |
| KAGAN, JEFFREY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/19/2025 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| JEK HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| PEASE BELL CPAS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| SUMMATION FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| VIVO HEALTHCARE CONSULTING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| ELRAMADY, DALIA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2022 |
| MABRY III, JACK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/25/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
11 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 $2.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in FL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Florida Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 105684. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-18, 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.