Miami Jewish Health Systems, INC
5200 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33137 · Non profit - Corporation · 393 certified beds · (305) 751-8626 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $14,800 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-18)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits 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 | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 13.3% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 5.5% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.0% | 4.6% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.4% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.2% | 14.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 4.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.5% | 10.5% | 21.2% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.8% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.5% | 1.5% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.0% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.8% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.5% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.38 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.23 | 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.
53.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 167 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 40.7% 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 91 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 50% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 53.3%CMS range 42.9–60.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 7.5–12.8 | 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 | 40.7% | 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 | 50.5% | 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 | 28.6% | 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 | 96.6% | 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 | 95.4% | 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 | 94.5% | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 7.3%CMS range 4.5–10.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 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 393 beds and averages 269.0 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 124 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 7.13 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.92 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.72 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 6.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.46 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.06 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% 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 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-03-18 · 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's staff failed to adequately supervise one (Resident #1) of two vulnerable residents sampled had falls resulting in injuries. On 02/25/2026 vulnerable Resident #1 was left unattended in an unlocked wheelchair by Certified Nursing Assistant Staff A; the wheelchair rolled away and Resident #1 fell from the wheelchair, hit his head on the pavement and sustained major head injuries. There were 235 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. The findings included: Observation on 3/18/26 at 11:42 AM of the facility's video footage dated 2/25/2026 timestamped 2:30 PM showed Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) escorting Resident #1who was seated in a wheelchair to the door of the auditorium. Staff A, CNA left Resident #1 at the door, did not lock the wheelchair and went inside the auditorium leaving Resident #1 outside. While Staff A, CNA was inside the auditorium, Resident #1's wheelchair started rolling until it came in contact…
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 · D2025-09-19 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to secure residents' confidential information on two ([NAME]-1st floor, Medication Cart 1 and 5th floor, Medication Cart 2) out of four medication carts: as evidenced by unattended Medication Carts noted with unlocked computer screens displaying residents' confidential information during medication administration. There were 288 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey.The findings included: Observation on 09/16/2025 at 9:47 AM, on the 5th floor, revealed Medication Cart 2 was left unattended and the computer's screen unlocked with visible resident information. (Photographic evidence). The Surveyor notified Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) of the identified concern. Staff C, RN revealed she did not realize she had left the computer screen open. On 09/16/2025 at 10:15 AM, observation on the 1st floor revealed Medication Cart 1 unattended and the computer screen unlocked with visible resident information. (Photographic…
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 · D2025-09-19 · 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 ensure oxygen therapy was delivered as prescribed for one (Resident # 55) out of one sampled resident who has a primary diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Failure. As evidenced by the resident's nasal canula (NC) was not in nostrils. The findings included.Observation on 09/16/2025 at 11:07 AM, Resident #55 was in bed with eyes closed, Oxygen (02) running at two (2) Liters per Minute (LPM) via Nasal Canula (NC), NC not in resident's nostrils. The surveyor requested to see the assigned nurse in resident's room.On 09/16/2025 at 11:14 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (Staff F), positioned the 02 tubing in the resident's nostrils, checked the resident's oxygen saturation on the right index finger, the reading was100.On 09/17/2025 at 10:53 AM, Resident #55 was observed in bed, receiving morning care, 02 running at 2 LPM via NC, nasal tubing position correctly in nostrils.During observation on 09/18/2025 at 10:00 AM, Resident #55 noted in room receiving…
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 before2025-09-19 · 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, records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure narcotics/ controlled substances were reconciled for one ([NAME] 3, Medication Cart #2) out of ten medication carts observed in the facility. There were 288 residents residing in the facility at the time of this survey.The findings include. On 09/17/2025 at 10:00 AM during the narcotic count and review of [NAME] (3) Medication Cart #2 with Licensed Practical Nurse (Staff I), the narcotic count was inaccurate for Resident # 127's Clonazepam oral tablet 1milligrams (mg). The narcotic count sheet revealed that the last tablet was signed out as given at 10:00 PM on 09/16/25 and the remaining tablets noted as 19. The bingo card/packet count was 18. In addition, the narcotic count was inaccurate for Resident # 255's Lacosamide Oral Tablet 100 milligrams (mg) tablet. The narcotic count sheet revealed that the last tablet was signed out as given at 06:39 PM on 09/16/25 and the remaining tablets noted as 56. The bingo card/packet count…
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 · D2025-09-19 · 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 interviews, the facility failed to follow infection prevention and control procedures for two (Resident #209 and Resident #302) out of 35 residents sampled. As evidenced by Resident #209's Incentive Spirometer and Resident # 302's Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BIPAP) machine was observed stored at bedside with no protective covering. The findings include.During observation on 09/16/2025 at 11:47 AM Resident #209 was in bed awake, oxygen (02) running at two (2) Liters per minute (Lpm), Incentive spirometer stored on bedside table with no protective covering (Photographic evidenced).Observation on 09/17/2025 at 11:00 AM and on 09/18/2025 at 01:27 PM the Incentive Spirometer was noted on the bedside table in a resealable plastic bag dated 09/17/25.Review of Resident # 209 medical records revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses included but not limited to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease, Chronic Respiratory Failure with…
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 · D2025-06-02 · 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for two (Residents #5 and #6) out of three residents sampled, as evidenced by Resident # 5 and Resident # 6 had wander/elopement alarm devices on their left ankle as ordered. However, the Annual MDS indicated the devices were not used. There were 306 residents residing at the facility at the time of the survey. The findings included: Resident #5: On 06/02/2025 at 12:40 PM Resident #5 was observed in the dining room, sitting in her wheelchair eating independently. Review of Resident #5's medical records revealed the resident was initially admitted to the facility on admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses include Dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance and Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident # 5's Physician's Orders Sheet and Electronic Treatment Administration Records for June 2025 revealed an order with start date…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-25 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews facility failed to administer medications as ordered by a physician in accordance with professional standards for two residents (Resident #1 and Resident #6) out of four sampled residents as evidenced by staff failed to administer an accurate dose of a laxative for Resident #1 and failed to administer a blood pressure lowering medication as ordered for Resident #1. The findings included: Observation on 2/25/25 at 9:12 AM of Resident # 6's medication administration being completed by Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) revealed the medications administered by mouth included Lactulose 15 ml (milliliters). The label on the bottle of Lactulose read 30 ml daily by mouth (photographic evidence). Review of Resident #6's physician orders revealed order dated 2/21/25: Lactulose Oral Solution 10 gm/15 ml (grams/milliliters) directions: Give 15 ml by mouth in the morning for constipation. Record review of Resident #6's demographic sheet revealed the resident was initially…
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 · D2025-02-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals stored and labeled in accordance with professional principles, as evidenced by one out of three medication carts sampled was left unlocked and unattended with a medical ointment on top of the cart; and discrepancy with labeled orders and Electronic Medication Administration (EMAR). The findings included: On 2/25/25 at 8:43 AM during observation of medication administration conducted by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) on the 2nd floor, Staff A, LPN stepped away from the medication cart to use the telephone at the nursing station, leaving the medication cart unlocked and a medical ointment on top of the cart. When Staff A, LPN returned to the cart the surveyor asked Staff A,LPN about the protocol for securing medication and storing ointments; Staff A,LPN replied: The cart should be locked when I walk away. The reason I left the cart unlocked when I walked away was because I could still see the cart. It is not okay to leave the cart unlocked. Ointments are kept 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 · D2024-05-09 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 complete a self-administration of medication assessment for two residents (Resident #294 and Resident #648) out of ten residents sampled as evidenced by an observation of a blue spray bottle labeled Immune Support Bio-active silver hydrosol at Resident # 294's and a box labeled Diclofenac Sodium Topical Gel 1 % ointment and a bottle labeled Valerian Extract supplement at Resident #648's. Both residents did not have a self-administration of medication assessment on file. There were 296 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. On 05/06/2024 at 12:05 PM an observation was made of a blue spray bottle labeled Immune Support Bio-active silver hydrosol at bedside of Resident #294. On 05/06/2024 at 12:05 PM Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) stated: I am the nurse assigned to [Resident #294]. I am not aware of [Resident #294] being able to self-medicate or keep medications at the bedside and I will follow up with the supervisor. Staff…
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 · D2022-12-15 · 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, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance during dining observation for 1 (Resident #293) of 6 residents reviewed for nutrition. The findings included: In an observation conducted on 12/12/22 at 1:00 PM, Resident #293 was noted in her room with the lunch tray. The lunch tray was observed to be 100% untouched, and no staff was noted in the room. Continued observation at 1:25 PM showed no staff in the room assisting Resident #293 with her lunch meal. In an observation conducted on 12/13/22 at 8:03 AM, Resident #293 was noted in her room with the breakfast tray in front of her. The tray was set up, and some of the food was cut into smaller pieces, but no staff was noted in the room. It was noted that 50 % of the [brand] nutritional supplement was 50% consumed. The food on the tray was noted to be 100% untouched. At 8:17 AM, showed Staff in the room standing over Resident #293, asking her if she wanted to eat. At 8:18 AM, Staff noted walking out of the room, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-15 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
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 the correct food consistencies for the ordered Pureed diets during dining observations and the second tour of the main kitchen. This has the potential to affect 52 residents residing in the facility on a Pureed diet. The findings included: A review of the Nation Dysphagia Diet Pureed Nutrition Therapy dated September 24, 2019, which Staff E, Registered Dietitian provided, showed the following: Pureed diet is indicated for the resident who has difficulty chewing or swallowing food items and benefits from stricter modifications of food textures to provide foods that can be successfully and safely swallowed. This diet consists of foods that are easy to swallow because they are pureed, smooth, and lump-free, not firm or sticky_ Foods do not require any chewing and may be prescribed due to several medical conditions. In an observation conducted on 12/12/22 at 1:00 PM, Resident #751 was noted in her room with her lunch tray. Closer…
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
$14,800 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $14,800 — penalty dated 2026-03-18
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-09-02 for 59 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CORBETT, SHAUN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/25/2019 |
| PURCELL, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/15/2022 |
| PINCUS, JASON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/05/2016 |
| MCCLOSKEY, FIONA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/26/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 105030. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-19, 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.