Village On The Green
500 Village Place, Longwood, FL 32779 · Non profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (407) 682-0230 Medicare only — no Medicaid
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 federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
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) | 4 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 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 | 4.5% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.7% | 0.7% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.7% | 14.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.7% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.0% | 10.5% | 21.2% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.5% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.5% | 26.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.1% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
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.
70.7% 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 511 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.6% 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 132 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 1.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 29% 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 | 70.7%CMS range 66.3–74.9 | 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 | 11.8%CMS range 9.3–13.8 | 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 | 63.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 68.9% | 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 | 56.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 2.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.0%CMS range 5.5–10.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 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 60 beds and averages 47.0 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.05 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.93 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.25 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 3.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.23 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.05 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% 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 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-03-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and maintain a secure environment to ensure vulnerable residents did not exit the facility without supervision, for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for elopement risk, out of a total sample of 8 residents, (#1). On 1/25/25 at approximately 6:20 AM, the facility failed to prevent a cognitively impaired resident from exiting the facility unsupervised. Resident #1 exited the building without knowledge of staff through an exit door at the end of the Royal Court Hall, which led to the back parking lot. The door did not have a delayed egress bar and the alarm on the door was not loud enough for staff to hear. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A stated the alarm was not heard by anyone working that morning. Resident #1 left the facility wearing only a gown, no shoes, socks or undergarments in cold January weather. She was found approximately 20 feet from the exit door, lying in the grass under a light blanket approximately 25…
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 · D2025-03-19 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an intravenous (IV) dressing was changed as ordered for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for IV therapy, of a total sample of 27 residents, (#45). Findings: Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including infection following a procedure, superficial incisional surgical site. A care plan for IV Medication use was initiated on 3/10/25. The care plan indicated resident #45 received IV antibiotics status post exploratory surgery and drained abscess to surgical site mid lower back. Interventions included to observe IV site for possible signs/symptoms of infection or infiltrate and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line care and flush as ordered. A PICC line is a long, thin tube inserted into a vein usually in your arm and passed through larger veins near your heart to give access to the larger veins for some types of medication or nutrition. A PICC line requires careful care and monitoring for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-19 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain oxygen flow rates as ordered by the physician for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for respiratory care, of a total sample of 27 residents, (#657). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #657 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from the hospital. His diagnoses included sepsis, pneumonia, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, congestive heart failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. Resident #657's Order Summary Report showed an active physician's order for oxygen at 2 liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula. The medical record also revealed a care plan intervention initiated on 3/17/25 that indicated the resident's oxygen settings should be administered via nasal cannula per physician orders. On 3/17/25 at 12:28 PM, resident #657 was observed in bed, being administered humidified oxygen through a nasal cannula connected to an oxygen concentrator. The concentrator's flow rate was set at 3 LPM. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-19 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 ensure 2 of 4 residents with physical limitations reviewed for Environment were provided call light device access within reach from a total sample of 27 residents, (#34, #37). Findings: 1. A review the medical record revealed resident #34, a [AGE] year old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an Assisted Living Facility and had diagnoses that included encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), psychotic disorder, anxiety disorder, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), dementia, cerebral (brain) vascular disease, and heart disease. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 10/26/23 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15 that indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Functional Abilities and Goals of everyday activities noted the resident was dependent or required substantial/maximum assistance from staff to complete Activities of Daily Living…
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 · D2024-01-19 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written Notice of Transfer or Discharge forms to the resident or their representative for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalizations out of a total sample of 27 residents, (#41, #154 and #303). Findings: 1. Resident #303 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cancer to the urinary organs and bones, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of resident #303's medical record revealed he was emergently hospitalized on [DATE]. A nurse's eInteract SBAR Summary for Providers dated 12/29/23 described the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse advised the nurse to call 911 due to bleeding from his genital organ. The medical record did not contain a written Notice of Transfer or Discharge form for the hospitalization. The resident returned from the hospital on [DATE]. On 1/18/24 at 3:16 PM, the Administrator confirmed they were unable to provide the form for resident #303's hospitalization on 12/2/23. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-19 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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 ensure individual activities and interests significant to support well-being were provided for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Activities from a total sample of 27 residents, (#37). Findings: A review of the medical record revealed resident #37, an [AGE] year old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with diagnoses that included fracture of sacrum (tailbone), leukemia, sepsis (blood stream infection), hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis), difficulty in walking, need for assistance with personal care, lack of coordination, weakness, and malnutrition. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission 5-day assessment with Assessment Reference Date 12/29/23 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 that indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Functional Abilities and Goals of everyday activities showed the resident required substantial/maximum assistance from staff to complete…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-07-28 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — patternProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 provide services and treatments to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for positioning and mobility of a total sample of 23 residents, (#1 and #14). Findings: 1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including weakness, spinal fusion, cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment with assessment reference date (ARD) of 7/15/22 revealed resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated she had moderate cognitive impairment. She required extensive to total assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). The document revealed the resident did not exhibit any behavioral symptoms including rejection of care. The assessment indicated resident #1 had limited range of motion (ROM) to one side of her body for both upper and lower extremities. A care plan for limited physical mobility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-07-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure potentially hazardous foods were at a hot holding temperature of 135 degrees Fahrenheit, or above, to prevent foodborne illness. Finding Review of the facility's lunch menu on 7/27/22, revealed the residents had a choice of Baked Ziti or Turkey Enchilada Casserole. The side items included [NAME] Peas, Red Potatoes and Coconut Cake. On 7/27/22 at 11:55 AM, the lunch tray line was observed. There were two cooks and several dietary aides at or near the tray line. [NAME] A stated the Baked Ziti and Turkey Enchilada Casserole were in the hot box, a full size temperature controlled, hot holding cabinet. The side items were on the steam table. The hot holding temperatures were checked with the facility's digital, bayonet style thermometer. The Turkey Enchilada Casserole had a hot holding temperature of 119 degrees Fahrenheit. Further temperatures taken of the Turkey Enchilada Casserole ranged from 119 to 129 degrees Fahrenheit. [NAME] B stated the holding temperature was supposed to be 160 degrees Fahrenheit.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-28 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 follow-up on pharmacy recommendations for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications of a total sample of 23 residents, (#1). Findings: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypothyroidism, cerebral infarction, and arteriosclerotic heart disease. A care plan for resident has hypothyroidism was initiated 4/30/21 with interventions for staff to administer thyroid replacement medication as ordered and obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered. Review of the pharmacy Consultation Report for April 2022 revealed a recommendation for the facility to monitor resident #1's Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) concentration on the next convenient lab day and at least annually due to resident receiving thyroid replacement medication, Levothyroxine. The report was unsigned and did not indicate whether the physician agreed or disagreed with the recommendation. Review of the Medication Review Report…
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.
- No harm found · C2022-07-28 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain the survey book with all surveys conducted in the past three years. Findings: Review of the survey book located in the facility's main lobby revealed it did not include all recent surveys. A complaint survey conducted on 10/7/21 resulted in deficiencies and the survey book did not include the statement of deficiencies or the facility's plan of correction for viewing by residents, visitors, and staff. On 7/26/22 at 3:20 PM, the Administrator acknowledged the complaint investigation results of 10/7/21 were not included in the survey book. There were no additional survey books readily available for review and the Administrator acknowledged it was her responsibility to update the survey book.
- 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 LIFESPACE COMMUNITIES — 15 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 14 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.4★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIFESPACE COMMUNITIES INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 01/01/1994 |
| LIFESPACE, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/09/2012 |
| GALEDACOSTA, MELISSA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 05/25/2017 |
| BLACKFORD, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| DARKEY-HRINYA, JOYCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/15/2018 |
| DUTRA, ANA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| FIELDS, VENITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/15/2018 |
| JENSEN, CLAUS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/26/2023 |
| MCDONOUGH, AMY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/26/2023 |
| SALAMINO, JENIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/26/2023 |
| SOKEYE, JONATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| SPANGLER, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| STRETCH, CLYDE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/26/2023 |
| WILLIAMS, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| YANOFSKY, NEAL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| GORMAN, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/26/2022 |
| HARSHFIELD, NICHOLAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/09/2020 |
| JANTZEN, JESSE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/25/2019 |
| KRESSE, NIKKI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/19/2021 |
| POPE, ERIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/25/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.4M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in FL
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Florida Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 105556. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-19, 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.