Palmetto Subacute Care Center
7600 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL 33144 · For profit - Corporation · 95 certified beds · (305) 261-2525 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 (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% 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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 | 9.2% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.5% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.4% | 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 | 1.3% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.4% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.4% | 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 | 4.0% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.5% | 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 | 9.2% | 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 | 97.9% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.6% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.0% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.58 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.35 | 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.
47.6% 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 41 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.2% 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 98 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 0.59 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 31% 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 | 47.6%CMS range 36.8–59.5 | 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 | 9.5%CMS range 6.0–14.2 | 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 | 62.2% | 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 | 43.9% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 53.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.3%CMS range 3.7–13.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.56 | 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 95 beds and averages 90.6 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.93 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.40 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.08 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.49 to 1.17 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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 · Dcited before2026-02-04 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to provide oxygen therapy at the rate ordered for one (Resident #104) out of one resident reviewed for respiratory therapy as evidenced by Resident #104 was receiving oxygen at a flow rate of 3.5 liters per minute instead of the physician-ordered 2 liters per minute as needed. This deficient practice has the potential for increased significant health risks including oxygen toxicity and pulmonary damage. The findings include. Observation on 02/02/2026 at 7:38 AM revealed Resident #104 in bed with eyes closed and nasal canula in place with oxygen being administered at a flow rate of 3.5 Liters Per Minute (LPM). Observations of Resident #104 on 02/03/2026 at 11:13 AM and 02/04/2026 at 10:13 AM revealed the resident was seated in a wheelchair with no oxygen in use. Review of Resident #104's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses included Pneumonitis due to inhalation of food and vomit, 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 · Dcited before2026-02-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide safe and secure storage of medications and biologicals for five Residents (Resident #6, Resident #9, Resident #31, Resident #32 and Resident #102) out of 18 residents sampled. There were 88 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings include. During the initial resident and room screenings and subsequent screenings on the 2nd floor North/South Unit of the facility, the following were observed: Resident #6Observation n 02/02/2026 at 7:56 AM revealed Resident #6 in bed awake, a tube of ointment was noted on the overbed table.Observation on 02/02/2026 at 10:36 AM revealed Resident #6 was out of the facility on an appointment and ointment was noted on the overbed table in the resident's room. Review of the medical records revealed Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses included but not limited to: Cerebral Infarction due to embolism of left middle cerebral artery. The admission Minimum…
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 before2026-02-04 · 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, interview and record review, the facility's quality assurance and assessment committee failed to demonstrate an effective plan of action was implemented to correct an identified quality deficiency in the problem area related to repeated deficient practice for F761-Label/Store Drugs and Biologicals. As evidenced by: F761 was cited during a Recertification Survey with exit dated 12/19/24 because the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored and labeled properly. The findings include.Record review of the facility's survey history revealed, during the Recertification Survey conducted on December 16, 2024, through December 19, 2024, F761 was cited as the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored and labeled properly. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan revision date 09/2025 states: Purpose: Quality is defined as meeting or exceeding the needs, expectations, and requirements of the patients cost-effectively while maintaining…
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 · D2026-02-04 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate storage of personal cleaning supplies for one Resident (#101) out of 18 sampled residents. As evidenced by dishwashing liquid soap and disinfectant spray stored in the resident's room on a shelf above the handwashing sink. There were 88 residents residing I the facility at the time of the survey. The findings include. On 02/02/2026 starting at 06:30 AM, during the initial resident and room screenings on the 2nd floor North/South Unit of the facility, the following were observed: On 02/22/2026 at 6:38 AM revealed Resident #101 in bed with eyes closed. Cleaning supplies (dishwashing liquid soap, disinfectant spray) were stored in the resident's room on a shelf above the handwashing sink. On 02/03/2026 at 9:20 AM Resident #101 was out of facility on an appointment, the cleaning supplies- (dishwashing liquid soap, disinfectant spray), remained stored in the resident's room on a shelf above the handwashing sink. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-29 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for one (Resident #1) out of three residents sampled for elopement. to ensure Resident #1's safety as evidenced by On 03/03/2025 Resident #1 a vulnerable resident left the facility undetected through the first floor's exit door and walked seven to eight blocks to his home. There were 93 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings included: Review of the facility policy titled wandering Elopements dated 01/28/25 indicate: The facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. If identified as at risk for wandering, elopement, or other safety issues, the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain the resident's safety. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled accidents 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 · E2024-12-19 · 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 observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to implement infection control protocols for the disinfectant wipes on two out of three floors in the facility, as evidenced by one container of expired disinfectant wipes observed on the second floor and two containers of expired disinfectant wipes on the third floor, and two containers of disinfectant wipes with expiration dates that were illegible. There were 85 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. On [DATE] at 9:55 AM, during a facility tour, disinfectant wipes were observed secured to the walls. Further observations revealed one container of disinfectant wipes on the second floor and two containers of disinfectant wipes on the third floor had an expiration date of [DATE] and two other disinfectant wipes containers expiration date was not legible (photographic evidence). On [DATE] at 10:03 AM, a visual tour to look at the disinfectant wipes was conducted with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator on the second 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 · Dcited before2024-12-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations record reviews and interviews, the facility's failure to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are stored and labeled properly, failed to ensure expired medical supplies are discarded and failed to ensure controlled medication are reconciled in accordance with professional standards; as evidence by an antibiotic eye ointment observed with no open and or expiration date for Resident #75, two normal saline bottles on Resident# 54's night stand and an unreconciled controlled substance for Resident #76. The findings included: 1) On [DATE] at 9:07 AM, review of the second floor North Medication Cart#2 with Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN). revealed one antibiotic eye ointment for Resident#75. without an open date or expiration date prescribed for Resident# 75, the label read dispense date [DATE] (photo). The Medication Administration Record revealed it was last administered on [DATE] at 1:00 PM to Resident#75. When asked what was the open or expiration date Staff B, RN reported it was…
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 · D2024-12-19 · 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
Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to notify the hospice provider of a significant change in condition for one resident (Resident #239) out of two sampled hospice residents as evidenced by no documentation indicating the hospice provider was notified of Resident #239's transfer to the hospital via emergency services. The findings included: Record review of Resident #239's demographic face sheet revealed an initial admission dated 8/23/21 a readmission date of 7/29/22 and a discharged date of 7/4/24 with diagnosis that include Alzheimer's disease with late onset. Review of Resident # 239's physician's order sheet indicated an order dated 9/1/22 for: Routine Hospice Care for diagnosis of End stage Alzheimer's. Record review of Care plan initiated on 9/2/22 and revised on 8/15/24 revealed Resident #239 was at end of life with a of terminal illness and has chosen a palliative approach to care, comfort Care and is under hospice services with a goal that Resident #239 will receive comfort/palliative care according to individual wishes and facility policy through…
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 before2024-12-19 · 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 record reviews and interview, the facility failed to demonstrate effective plan of actions to correct identified quality deficiency in the problem area related to repeated deficient practice for F761-Label/Store Drugs and Biologicals. As evidenced by nurse not signing narcotic log at time of medication administration and not labeling antibiotic eye ointment with expiration and opened date. Review of the facility's survey history revealed; during the recertification survey with an exit dated 08/24/2023 the facility was cited F761 for failure to secure a controlled medication. Review of the facility's policy and procedures titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Plan revision dated 09/2024 states: Our QAPI plan includes the policies and procedures used to identify and use data to monitor our performance and establish goals, thresholds for improvement measures, and data at the facility, state, and national levels. Such data and performance measures will be used to: i. Identify and monitor our performance ii. Establish goals and thresholds for our…
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 · D2023-08-24 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a homelike environment as evidenced by not providing housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain an orderly, and comfortable interior for resident rooms #203, #207A, #210, #213, #215A, #217, #219, #225B, #229, #235, #236A. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy and procedure noted the following: Homelike Environment dated 03/08/2023. Policy Statement: Residents are provided with safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment and encouraged to use their personal belongings to extent possible. Policy Interpretation and implementation: 1. Staff provides person-centered care that emphasizes the resident's comfort, independence and personal need and preferences. 2. The facility staff and management maximize, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, homelike setting. The characteristics include: a) Clean, sanitary and orderly environment. b) Personalized furniture and room arrangements. c) Clean bed 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 · D2023-08-24 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for two residents (Resident # 67, and Resident # 81) out of two residents MDS reviewed for accuracy. Resident # 67 was not coded for hospice care, and Resident # 81 was inaccurately coded for discharge to the hospital and the resident was discharged home. The findings included: 1. Record review of the clinical records for Resident # 67 revealed, the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Other Specified Degenerative Diseases of Nervous System; Dysphagia Following Other Cerebrovascular Disease; Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Severity, Without Behavioral Disturbance, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood disturbance and Anxiety; Unspecified Psychosis Not Due to a Substance or Known Physiological condition; Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Unspecified; Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified. Record review of the Physician Orders dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to follow the physician's orders and policy for a midline intravenous (IV) dressing change for one (Resident #25) out of five residents who were receiving intravenous therapy at the facility. As evidenced by the midline dressing being dated as changed on 7/20/2023. The midline dressing was not changed for one month. The findings include: In an observation on 08/21/23 at 02:45 PM, Resident #25 was awake and sitting in a wheelchair. A midline intravenous catheter to the right arm was observed. The midline dressing was dated 7/20/23. (See photo evidence) In an observation on 08/22/23 at 11:07 AM, Resident #25 was awake in bed, and it was observed that the dressing to the midline was changed and dated 8/21/23. (See photo evidence) In an interview on 08/23/23 at 02:46 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). When asked, What is your facility's policy for midline dressings changes for residents? The DON stated It is the night shift nurse's…
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 before2023-08-24 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician's orders for oxygen administration for one out of four sampled residents (Resident #334). The findings included: Observation on 08/21/23 at 10:32 AM revealed, Resident #334 was lying in bed sleeping. Further observation showed the resident was receiving oxygen therapy; the oxygen concentration level was at 3.5 LPM (liters per minute). (photo evidence obtained) Review of the physicians order dated 08/18/2023 revealed, an order for Oxygen (O2) via nasal cannula at 2L/min as needed for O2 sat <92% as needed for SOB (shortness of breath). Review of Resident #334's medical diagnoses dated 08/17/2023 revealed, Gout unspecified (primary), essential (primary) hypertension, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease, and polyneuropathies. Review of Resident #334's progress notes dated 08/21/2023 (e-medication administration notes) revealed, an Oxygen via nasal cannula at 2L/min as needed for O2 sat <92% as needed for SOB was administered. Further review revealed, on 08/22/2023 an Oxygen via nasal…
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 before2023-08-24 · 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 record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to properly secure a controlled medication for one out of three medication carts observed. The findings include: On 08/21/23 at 09:38 AM, during a medication cart observation with Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) on Two - South - cart one. The Surveyor observed the narcotic count binder was placed on top of the treatment cart next to Staff A's medication cart. Staff A, RN and the Surveyor performed a narcotic count, and it was correct, but the Surveyor observed a bingo card containing one remaining Lorazepam 0.5 mg(milligram) tab at the end of the narcotic count sheets with its narcotic count record sheet. On 08/21/23 at 09:45 AM, in an interview with Staff A, RN, when asked, How are controlled substances to be stored and reason the Ativan was placed in the back of the binder? Staff A, RN stated, these medications are always to be stored in a locked box. The nurse from the previous shift did this. Review of the narcotic count sheet revealed, Lorazepam 0.5 mg tab was signed out on 8/21/23 a 4:45 PM with one tablet…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARERITE CENTERS — 34 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 33 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EINHORN, NEAL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | 40% | since 01/04/2017 |
| FRIEDMAN, MARK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | 40% | since 01/04/2017 |
| SCHWARTZ, ELIEZER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 01/04/2017 |
| CALONGE, MONICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2006 |
| CARMONA, OSVALDO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MISSAGGIA, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/05/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 $620K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in FL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Florida Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 105939. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-04, 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.