Palace At Kendall Nursing And Rehabilitation Cente
11215 SW 84th Street, Miami, FL 33173 · For profit - Partnership · 180 certified beds · (305) 271-2225 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
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) | 5 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 held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.3% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.2% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 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 | 1.5% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.6% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.2% | 14.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.9% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.9% | 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 | 6.2% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.5% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.0% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.4% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.76 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.34 | 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.
69.1% 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 341 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 44.6% 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 195 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 27% 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 | 69.1%CMS range 63.9–74.1 | 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 | 12.7%CMS range 10.9–15.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 44.6% | 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 | 32.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 37.4% | 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 | 98.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 4.2–9.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.91 | 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 180 beds and averages 170.4 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.26 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.29 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.61 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 3.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.42 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.41 to 0.99 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · 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 observations, record reviews, and interviews; the facility's staff failed to provide privacy for one (Resident #38) out of two sampled residents during medication administration. Staff administered medications to Resident #38 in the hallway in front of the first-floor nursing station. There were 176 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings includeObservation on 04/20/2026 at 9:20 AM revealed Staff L, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) administering medications to Resident # 38 in the hallway in front of the first-floor nursing station. Staff L, LPN did not redirect or reeducate Resident #38 about privacy during medication administration.Record review of a demographic sheet revealed Residet # 38 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system and Dementia.Record review of a Minimum Data Set reference dated 03/20/2026 revealed Resident # 38 had a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, records reviewed and interviews the facility's staff failed to ensure that an assistive device for hearing was in place for one (Resident #70) out of two sampled residents with a hearing device. Observations showed Resident #70's prescribed hearing device was not in place, even though staff documented in the Electronic Health Records that they had applied the device. At the time of the survey, 16 residents resided in the facility that used hearing devices.The findings included: Observation on 04/20/2026 at 9:43 AM revealed Resident #70 in bed, pulling on a call light wrapped around the bed railing and biting it. Resident #70 shrugged shoulders when greeted. There were two hearing aid devices on the nightstand; one was on a charging device and the other inside a plastic bag (photo evidence). A follow up observation on 04/20/2026 at 11:48 AM revealed Resident #70 seated in a recliner in the dining area not wearing a hearing aid device. Resident #70 was not following staff directions. 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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, records reviewed interviews facility staff did not administer oxygen therapy at the prescribed rate for one resident (Resident #81) out of one resident investigated as evidenced by Resident # 81 was observed receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at 3.5 Liters Per Minute (LPM) instead of 2 LPM. At the time of the survey, 72 residents in the facility had oxygen orders. The findings included. On 04/21/2026 at 8:20 AM, Resident #81 was observed in bed sleeping the oxygen concentrator was set at 3.5 LPM.On 04/22/2026 at 9:34 AM, Resident #81 was observed asleep with the nasal cannula in place and the oxygen concentrator was set at 3.5 LPM. Record review Resident #81's clinical records revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses include but were not limited to: Encounter for Palliative Care; Other Viral Pneumonia; Acute Pulmonary Edema. Review of orders dated 03/10/2026 showed Oxygen at a rate of 2 Liter per Minute as needed. Change Oxygen tubing and/or mask 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 · D2026-04-23 · 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 records reviewed the facility's staff failed to safely secure medications and biologicals on one (First floor cart one) out of three medication carts on the facility's first floor. As evidenced by medications observed unsecured on unattended medication cart one. This deficient practice increased the risk to residents' safety. The findings included. During an observation on 04/20/2026 at 8:33 AM, it was noted that medications and eye drops were left unattended on medication cart one located on the first floor. The cart was parked next to the hallway, and the nurse was in a resident's room two doors across the hallway. A resident was observed propelling in wheelchair down the hallway. (Photo evidence).On 04/20/2026 at 8:48 AM Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) returned to the medication cart.In an interview on 04/20/2026 Staff B, LPN, was asked about the unattended medications left on top of the cart. Staff B, LPN revealed a resident had an emergency and she should not have left the medications on top the cart unattended because anyone could…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility did not implement effective plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies in the problem area related to repeated deficient practices for F880 Infection Prevention and Control, as evidenced by staff failed to store respiratory equipment in a plastic bag after use for Resident #131. The findings included.Review of the facility's survey history revealed the facility was cited F880 Infection Prevention and Control during the recertification survey with an exit dated 13/03/2024.The Administrator stated in an interview on 04/23/2026 at 1:10 PM that the facility held its Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings on the third Wednesday of every month. Committee members included the Administrator, Risk Manager/Director of Social Services/Director of Nursing, Medical Director, Infection Control/Prevention Officer, Consultant Pharmacist, and Department Heads. The QAPI team reviewed multiple data sources to identify gaps, trends, or opportunities for improvement in systems of care. These…
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 before2026-04-23 · 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 observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to follow infection control protocol for one (Resident #50) out of two residents sampled who receive respiratory treatments as evidenced by two separate observations of Resident # 50's respiratory equipment not being stored in plastic bag after use. The findings included:Observation and interview on 04/21/2026 at 09:28 AM revealed Resident #50 in bed awake, alert and oriented a nebulizer mask noted on the bedside table was not in a plastic bag. (Photographic evidence). When asked about the nebulizer mask Resident # 50 revealed the mask had been sitting on the bedside table since 06:00 AM that morning (04/21/2026). Record review of Resident #50's clinical records revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses include but are not limited to: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), wheezing and pulmonary edema. Record review of Resident #50's Care Plan for April 2026 revealed Mitigation strategies to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-10-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 control procedures and protocols for six residents (#73, #78, #14, #109, #115, #133) out of ten residents receiving enteral feedings as evidenced by observations of tube feeding connectors uncapped while feeding was not in progress. The findings include: During observation on 09/30/24 at 10:01 AM resident #73 was not in room; on the right side of the resident's bed A feeding bottle labeled [Formula Brand] was observed hanging on a pole, not in progress, and the connector tip was uncapped. Review of the medical records for Resident # 73 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses included but not limited to: Dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase. Review of the Physician's Orders Sheet (POS) for 10/01/2024 revealed the Resident #73 had orders that included but not limited to: [formula] at 50 milliliters per hour via PEG (Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) x (times) 18 hours. Special…
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 · D2024-10-03 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to update a side rails care plan for one resident with a seizure disorder (#109) out of 18 residents with padded assist rails as evidenced by a physician's order for Resident #109 with directions to keep both side rails in the up position and a care plan with interventions that included side rails to be in the down position. There were 171 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. The findings included: On 9/30/24 at 10:25 AM Resident #109 was observed in bed with eyes open, holding a toy. Two quarter length side rails observed in the up position. The right-side rail had a blue padding attached and the left side rail had no padding. A padding was noted on the recliner near the resident. Record review of a demographic sheet for Resident #109 revealed an admission date of 5/2/24 with diagnosis that included but not limited to: seizures, psychotic disturbance, anxiety disorder restlessness and agitation. Record review of a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) with a reference date 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 · D2024-10-03 · 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
Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #137) out of two sampled residents receive quality of care and treatment in accordance with professional standards as evidenced by observations of an undated dressing on the left side of Resident #137's face. The findings included: On 09/30/24 at 10:14 AM two surveyors observed Resident #137 in bed with a dressing on the left side of Resident #137's face that also covered the left ear with no date. On 10/01/24 at 9:49 AM two surveyors observed Resident#137 in bed with a dressing on the left side of Resident #137's face that also covered the left ear with no date. Record review of the demographic sheet for Resident#137 revealed an admission date of 7/15/2022 with diagnosis that included: Other specified disorders of left ear with left ear skin lesion and changes in skin texture. Record review of a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) with a reference date of 7/15/2024 Section C (Cognitive Status) revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 on a…
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 · D2024-10-03 · 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
Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide an environment free from potential safety hazards for one resident (R#109) out of out of 18 residents with padded assist rails as evidenced by observations of two quarter side rails in the up position and one was without padding. The findings included: On 9/30/24 at 10:25 AM Resident #109 was observed in bed with eyes open, holding a toy. Two quarter length side rails observed in the up position. The right-side rail had a blue padding attached and the left side rail had no padding. There was a padding on the recliner near the resident. (see photos) On 10/01/24 at 8:57 AM, Resident #109 was observed in bed, two quarter side rails noted in the up position. The left sided rail had no padding. There was a padding on the recliner near the resident. (see photos) Record review of a demographic sheet for Resident #109 revealed an admission date of 5/2/24 with diagnosis that included: Seizure. Record review of a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) with a reference date of 9/5/24 Section C…
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 · D2023-05-10 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 1 out of 2 residents sampled for food preferences (Resident #702) was honored in his choice of food preferences during meal times. The facility had a census of 172 residents at the time of the survey. The findings included: Review of the facility's resident rights policy and procedures last reviewed January 13, 2023 revealed: The facility respect and honor resident rights. The facility informs residents about their rights and responsibilities upon admission. The facility respects the resident cultural, psychosocial, personal, and spiritual values, beliefs, and preferences, respects the resident rights to participate in decisions about his or her care, treatment, and services. Review of the facility's policy and procedures on resident food preferences revised on January 13, 2023 revealed: The purpose of the food preferences and assessment is to best meet resident's dietary needs, food habits, calorie intake, and quality of life. It…
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 · D2023-05-10 · 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 for two (Resident #13, and Resident #195) out of 3 residents reviewed for resident assessments. As evidenced by inaccurate coding of MDS section O for Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs. Oxygen therapy for Resident #13 and Hospice care for Resident #195. There were 172 residents residing in the facility at the time of this survey. The Findings Included: During observation on 05/07/23 at 09:00 AM, resident #13 was observed in the wheel chair eating breakfast, oxygen (02) was running via nasal canula (NC). On 05/08/23 at 08:24 AM, the resident was observed in bed asleep, the 02 was running at 2 liters per minute (LPM) via NC, the call light was on the bed. On 05/09/23 at 09:30 AM, the resident was observed in bed asleep, the 02 was running at the correct rate. Review of the medical records for Resident #13 revealed, the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses…
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 · D2023-05-10 · 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 maintain an accurate receipt of administration of controlled medications and failed to store medications for 1 out of 5 carts checked. The findings included: On 05/09/23 at 11:22 AM, during an observation with Staff C, Licensed Practical (LPN) of cart number three on the third floor. A purple pill which was Levothyroxine 75 mg was found on the bottom of the drawer below the resident's medication blister packs. Staff C placed the medication in a drug buster container and shook the bottle. During the review of the controlled medication record book for resident #176's Hydrocodone 10-325 mg (milligram) tabs controlled medication record. The record bood documented there were 28 tablets remaining, but in the blister pack there were 27. Staff C corrected the sheet that it was 27 remaining. At 5/9/23 8:51 AM, Staff had given a Hydrocodone tab to resident #176. On 05/09/23 at 01:27 PM, during an interview with Staff C, LPN. Staff C was asked, What…
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 · D2023-05-10 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain communication with hospice to ensure continuation of care for 1 (Resident #7) out of 5 residents reviewed for hospice care, as evidenced by no updated hospice communication notes available in Resident #7's medical records. This had the potential to affect the 38 residents receiving hospice care in the facility at the time of this survey. The findings included: During Observation on 05/07/23 at 08:54 AM, Resident #7 was in bed being fed by a Certified Nursing Assistant, a unilateral floor mat was at the beside. On 05/08/23 at 08:24 AM, Resident #7 was in bed asleep, no distress was noted. On 05/09/23 at 12:04 PM, resident #7 was in bed awake watching Television, no distress was noted. Record review of the facility's hospice notes revealed, the most recent documentation available for Resident #7: was on 4/3/23-Focus visit plan completed, 4/5/23 -nursing comprehensive assessment was completed. Review of the medical records for Resident #7…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KENDALL HEALTH CARE INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 67% | since 02/11/1993 |
| KHCPCI LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 10/16/2000 |
| SHAHAM, HELEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/02/2005 |
| RUIZ, OSCAR | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/04/1996 |
| SHAHAM, JACOB | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/11/1991 |
| PROFESSIONAL CARE I, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2005 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 $1.7M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in FL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Florida Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 105719. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-23, 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.