Jackson Memorial Long Term Care Center
2500 NW 22nd Ave, Miami, FL 33142 · Government - County · 180 certified beds · (786) 466-3000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (12% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
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 |
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 3 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 | 1.6% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.1% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.2% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.1% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.0% | 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 | 6.4% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.7% | 10.5% | 21.2% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.4% | 8.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.3% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.2% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.26 | 2.13 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.51 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 180 beds and averages 172.4 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.88 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.23 is at or above 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 4.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.00 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 2.07 to 1.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 12% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-02-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent falls for one resident (Resident #1) out of three sampled residents reviewed for accidents and falls during a complaint investigation survey. Resident #1 a newly admitted , vulnerable and cognitively impaired had an assigned one to one (1:1) sitter was left unsupervised exited the facility through an emergency exit door descending a flight of stairs. Staff found Resident #1 at the bottom of the stairs (8 steps total) with abrasions to the bridge of the nose, right hand, and forehead. There were 172 residents residing in the facility during the survey. The findings include:Observational tour on 02/26/2026 starting at 8:18 AM of the location of the incident involving Resident #1 revealed the resident exited the facility through the South Two Emergency Exit located approximately 30 feet from the resident's room.Record Review Resident # 1's clinical records revealed the resident was admitted to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe environment free of potential accidents and hazards for all residents residing in the facility by failing to implement the facility's policy related to accident and hazards for five (Resident #57,Resident #68, Resident #47, Resident #112 and Resident #150) out of 45 residents sampled in the facility; as evidence by: 1) Resident #57's side rail padding was observed on the outer side of the bed rail 2) a bladed box cutter was a observed on Resident # 68's bedside table, 3) No safety floor mat on the left side of Resident # 47's bed, 4) Resident # 112 had no safety floor mat to the right side of the bed and 5) a pack of cigarettes observed in Resident #150's pant pocket. These deficient practices increase the risk of accidents, hazards and fires that could cause serious harm, serious injuries or even fatalities. There were 169 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings include. Resident #57…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to properly position an indwelling urinary tubing to facilitate the flow of urine for one (Resident #46) out of one sampled resident with an indwelling urinary catheter, as evidenced by Resident #46's indwelling catheter tubing was positioned above bladder and kinked. This deficient practice prevented the free flowing of urine that would be accumulated in the bladder causing discomfort and increasing the risk for catheter-associated urinary tract infections and other serious medical issues. There were four residents with indwelling urinary catheters residing in the facility at the time of this survey.The findings include.During an observation on 8/11/25 at 1:01 PM, Resident #46 was standing in his room, a tubing was observed protruding from the top of the Resident's shorts and into a drainage bag that was anchored on the walker (photo evidence). Resident #46 revealed he had an indwelling urinary catheter and complained of blood in 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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement infection control measures for three (Residents #57, Resident #98 and Resident #106) out of twenty-one sampled vulnerable Residents, as evidenced by Residents #57 and Resident #98 catheter dignity bags touching the floor; and improper hand hygiene during Resident #106's tracheostomy care. These deficient practices increase the risk for life-threatening infections. The findings included: On 08/12/2025 at 2:02 PM Resident #57's urinary catheter drainage bag was observed in a dignity bag on the floor (photo evidence). Resident #57 Review of the medical records for Resident #57 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses included but not limited to urinary tract infection (UTI). Review of the Physician's Orders Sheet for 06/03/2025 revealed that Resident #57 may use external catheter diagnosis (dx) sacral wound. Record review of Resident #57 's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment Section 0 for one (Resident #136) out of four residents reviewed for resident assessment. There were 166 residents residing at the facility at the time of the survey. The findings included: Record review of Resident #136's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] Section O for Special treatments and procedures documented that the resident did not receive any special treatments or procedures. Review of the Physician's Orders Sheet for April 2024 revealed Resident #136 had orders that included but not limited to: Suction Tracheostomy (Trach) as needed and every shift, Trach care every shift and as needed, and Fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) at 30% via trach collar every Shift. Further review of the medical records for Resident #136 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses included but not limited to: Acute and chronic respiratory failure, unspecified…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for one resident (Resident #61) out of eight residents sampled. As evidenced by Resident #61 observed in bed without floor mats in place and out of bed without wearing a helmet. There were 165 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. The findings included: On 4/01/2024 at 9:36 AM, Resident #61 was observed seated in a wheelchair on the patio near staff. The resident had a splint on the left hand and the left foot was elevated on footrest. On 4/02/2204 at 9:58 AM, Resident #61 was observed self-propelling in wheelchair in the hallway. A splint was on the left hand and the left foot was elevated on the footrest. On 4/03/2024 at 8:34 AM, Resident #61 was observed lying in bed, no bilateral floor mats in place (photo evidence) On 4/04/2024 at 8:37 AM, Resident #61 observed lying in bed, no bilateral floor mats in place (photo evidence) Record review of demographic sheet for revealed Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · 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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to obtain a prescribed order for a skin graft dressing change and failed to change the dressing daily per facility protocol for one resident (Resident #31) out of 2 sampled residents. As evidenced by no prescribed orders available for skin graft treatment dressing observed on 04/02/24 on resident anterior left leg initialed and dated 3/30/2024. The findings included: During assessment observation on 04/02/2024 at 08:59 AM Resident #31 was observed with a dressing to the left anterior leg dated 03/30/24, 11-7 PM shift. During observation on 04/03/2024 at 10:58 AM Registered Nurse, Wound Care (Staff C) prepared dressing change supplies, checked the order, entered resident's room, donned gown, washed hands, identified resident, prepared resident for dressing change with the assistance of Registered Nurse (Staff J) washed hands, donned gloves, opened supplies, apply barrier to bed, removed dressing from skin graft sight on anterior left leg, sight…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · 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 Ensure oxygen therapy was being provided at an accurate flow rate of oxygen setting for one resident (Resident # 77) out of ten sampled residents. As evidenced by Resident#77 was observed receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at five Liter Per Minute instead of the prescribed three Liters Per Minute. This practice has the potential to have an adverse effect on residents in the facility that requires oxygen therapy. The findings included: On 04/01/2024 at 9:28 AM Resident # 77 observed in bed with oxygen in progress at five Liters Per Minute (LPM) via nasal cannula (N/C). (photo evidence) On 04/02/2024 at 10:07 AM Resident #77 was observed in bed with oxygen in progress at five LPM via N/C. (photo evidence) Record review of demographic face sheet revealed Resident #77 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Pneumonia. Record review of Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2/28/2024 Section C for cognitive status revealed a Brief Interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow pharmacy procedures for one out of two carts; as evidenced by Licensed Practical Nurse observed administering medications to Resident #111 in the hallway of the one East unit, next to Medication Cart B. There were 166 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings included: On 04/03/2024 at 09:20 AM during medication administration observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (Staff A), the surveyor observed Staff A administering medications to Resident #111 in the 1 East unit hallway, next to Cart B Medication Cart. Review of the medical records for Resident #111 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses included but not limited to: Guillain-Barre syndrome. Interview on 04/03/2024 at 9:30 AM, Staff A stated: This resident wanted his medication right away because he wanted to go to his activities, I know I was not supposed to give the resident his medications in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI DADE COUNTY FLORIDA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 04/25/1992 |
| HERNANDEZ BORGES, SERGIO | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/29/2023 |
| KNIGHT, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2010 |
| TORRES, MYRIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/13/2015 |
| LAVIAN, JUSTIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/22/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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 $343K 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
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 105392. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, 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.