Shoreside Health And Rehabilitation Center
201 NE 112th Street, Miami, FL 33161 · For profit - Corporation · 150 certified beds · (305) 899-4700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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 | 5 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 | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 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 | 6.7% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 5.5% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.2% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.2% | 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 | 0.6% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.1% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.4% | 14.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.6% | 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 | 3.2% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.6% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.5% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.12 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.56 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 62.3% 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 69 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 38% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 38% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.3%CMS range 8.3–15.2 | 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 | 62.3% | 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 | 60.9% | 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 | 47.8% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 1.9% | 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 | 9.1%CMS range 5.2–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.16 | 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 150 beds and averages 141.7 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.61 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.90 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.71 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.80 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-26 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 did not document a prescribed order for oxygen therapy on time and did not ensure oxygen therapy was delivered as prescribed for one (Resident #23) out of one sample resident who has a primary diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. This was evidenced by the absence of a written order for oxygen therapy in the Electronic Medication Administration Records (EMAR). During an initial screening observation on 09/23/2025 at 8:30 AM, revealed Resident #23 in bed with eyes closed, receiving oxygen at two liters per minute (Lpm) via nasal cannula (NC); the oxygen tubing was positioned on the resident's forehead. At 8:34 AM, the surveyor requested Registered Nurse (RN) Staff A to come to the resident's room. Staff A, RN assessed the resident, washed her hands, donned gloves, and repositioned the oxygen tubing in the resident's nostrils.Observations on 09/24/2025 at 8:25 AM and on 09/25/2020 at 7:00 AM, noted Resident #23 in bed with eyes…
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 before2024-06-06 · 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
On 06/04/24 at 9:11 AM. During medication administration observation was done on nursing unit C with Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse, (LPN) using medication cart number one. During the medication administration observation Staff D, LPN walked away from the medication cart number one and entered a resident's room, leaving the computer screen open and resident's personal information visible. On 06/04/24 at 9:15 AM Staff D, LPN returned to medication cart number one and stated to surveyor, I made a mistake. I am supposed to close the computer screen whenever I leave the cart. I didn't close the screen because I forgot. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure residents' confidential medical records were secure. As evidenced, two medication carts (Cart #1, Cart #2) on Unit C, were left unattended and the screen for the Electronic Medication Administration Records (EMAR) was unlocked, displaying residents' information on the screen. There were 136 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. The findings included: On 06/04/24 at 09:00 AM during…
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 · D2024-06-06 · 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 and interview the facility failed to follow the facility's policy regarding pharmacy procedures. As evidenced by during medication administration observation on Unit C, Licensed Practical Nurse (Staff A) administered an incorrect dosage of insulin to Resident #87. There were two residents that receive routine insulin residing on Unit C. The findings included: On 06/04/24 at 9:17 AM during medication administration observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (Staff A). it was observed that Staff A administered 15 units of Lantus ® (insulin glargine injection) to Resident# 87's left upper abdomen. Resident # 87 had an order for 16 units of Lantus, 100 Units /ML (units per milliliter) subcutaneously two times a day for Diabetes Mellitus. The surveyor requested Staff A check the orders for Resident #87's Lantus, Staff A checked Resident #87's orders and said the order is for 16 units of Lantus and she gave the resident 15 units. In a situation like this I will speak to my supervisor and see what I…
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 · D2024-06-06 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 the medication error rate was not five (5) percent or greater. As evidenced by during medication administration observations an incorrect dose of insulin was given to Resident #87 and Resident #97 did not receive a prescribed injection for Anemia. There were 136 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. The findings included: Resident #87 On 06/04/24 at 9:17 AM during medication administration observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (Staff A). It was observed that Staff A administered 15 units of Lantus (insulin glargine injection) to Resident# 87's left upper abdomen. Resident # 87 had an order for 16 units of Lantus, 100 Units /ML (units per milliliter) subcutaneously two times a day for Diabetes Mellitus. The surveyor requested Staff A check the orders for Resident #87's Lantus, Staff A checked Resident #87's orders and said the order is for 16 units of Lantus and she gave the resident 15 units. In a situation…
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 · E2023-10-02 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — patternProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
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 there was sufficient dietary staff in place to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service department. There was only one dietary aide and one cook in the kitchen preparing breakfast. The deficient practice resulted in breakfast being delivered to the nursing units more than 30 minutes late. This has the potential to affect one hundred and twenty three residents out of one hundred and thirty seven residents who eat orally residing in the facility. The findings included: Record review of the facility's policy titled Staffing Policy and Procedure (reviewed date 01/2023) documented: Policy Statement-Our facility provides sufficient numbers of staff with the skills and competency necessary to provide care and services for all residents in accordance with resident's needs. Policy Interpretation and Implementation-2) Staffing numbers and the skill requirements of direct care staff are determined by the needs of the residents…
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 · F2022-12-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety that include: failure to hold foods at regulatory temperatures, failure to clean and sanitize food preparation equipment after each use, failed to properly cover trash/garbage receptacle, failure to ensure cleaning cloth buckets have sufficient chemical levels, ensure that foods are thawed by regulatory regulations, failure to date and label all opened food containers, failure to eliminate dented food cans, and failure to handle clean silverware in a sanitary manor. The findings included: 1) Initial Kitchen/Food Service observation tour conducted on 12/19/22 at 9:00 AM, accompanied with the Food Service Director (FSD) noted the following: (a) Raw chicken (approximately 40 pounds) was noted to be thawing in the cooks sink with running cold water. The surveyor informed the FSD that regulation requires a continuous full stream of cold water at all times during thawing. (b) An overflowing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-12-22 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 37 residents with reasonable accommodations for food preferences. there were 132 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings included: During the observation of the food tray line in the main kitchen on 12/20/22 at 7:00 AM, numerous tray meal tickets were observed by the surveyor. The tickets were noted to document specific food preference for every resident's meal. Further observation of the tray tickets noted request for Prune Juice and Yogurt potions (regular, fruited, and sugar free). The observation noted that these residents did not receive food preferences of prune juice and or Yogurt. Interview with Food Service Director (FSD) at the time of observation noted to state that these foods were not included in the last delivery and residents were without these food preferences for past 3 to 4 days and hoped that they would come with the next delivery on 12/21/22. It was also noted during the interview with the FSD that these foods could easily…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-12-22 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior for 4 of 4 residential units (100 Unit, 200 Unit, 300 Unit and 400 Unit), in-house dialysis room, and laundry area. The findings included: During the initial resident screening conducted on 12/19/2022 and the environment tour conducted on 12/22/2022 to 12/23/2022 accompanied with the Corporate Maintenance Director, the following were noted on the 100 Unit: room [ROOM NUMBER]: Bathroom shower head would not shut off (continually running), and room walls damaged and in disrepair. room [ROOM NUMBER]: Numerous holes in bathroom wall, and 2 of 4 bathroom lights out. room [ROOM NUMBER]: Toilet requiring recaulking to floor, bathroom walls damaged and in disrepair, toilet seat loose, and 2 of 4 bathroom lights out. room [ROOM NUMBER]: Numerous small holes in bathroom wall, bathroom floor heavily stained throughout, and rusted…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-12-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents residing on the 300 Unit remained free of potential accident hazards from unsafe hot water temperatures in resident rooms and common shower areas. The findings included: During the screening of residents and rooms on the 300 Unit on 12/19/22 at 9 AM, the bathroom hot water was checked by the surveyor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The check revealed that the surveyor could not keep his hand in the water and noted be scalding to the touch. The surveyor requested the Director of maintenance to the room to check the actual hot water temperature with the use facility's thermometer. The Director stated that he has only had the director's position for approximately 1 to 2 months and did not have a thermometer. The director stated that he takes hot water temperatures daily of resident rooms. The surveyor asked how that is accomplished if there is no thermometer available for testing. The surveyor then requested…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-12-22 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — patternEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician ordered High Calorie/High Protein Diet (Fortified/Enhanced Foods) for 18 residents out of 18 that included 6 sampled residents (Resident #24, Resident #39, Resident #78, Resident #89, Resident #102, and Resident #122) failure to follow physician ordered Fluid Restriction for 1 of 2 (Resident #49), and failed to provide physician ordered supplements for weight loss for 51 residents ( Resident #63, Resident #68, Resident #83, and Resident #106). The findings included: During the observation of the tray line in the main kitchen for the lunch meal of 12/19/22 at 11:30 AM and the breakfast meal on 12/20/22 at 7:00 AM, it was noted that numerous meal tray tickets documented milkshakes with meals. Continued observation noted that a commercial milkshakes was not included on the residents meal trays for the breakfast and lunch meals. An interview conducted with the Food Service Director (FSD) at the time 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.
Show the remaining 9 citations
- Potential for harm · E2022-12-22 · 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 policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Isolation - Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions, with a revised date of January 2022 included: Transmission-Based Precautions are initiated when a resident develops signs and symptoms of a transmissible infection; arrives for admission with symptoms of an infection; or has a laboratory confirmed infection; and is at risk of transmitting the infection to other residents. When a resident is placed on transmission-based precautions, appropriate notification is placed on the room entrance door and on the front of the chart so that personnel and visitors are aware of the need for and the type of precaution. The signage informs the staff of the type of CDC (Center for Disease Control) precaution(s), instructions for use of PPE…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-22 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide showers per resident preferences for three sampled residents reviewed for showers (Resident #38, Resident 83, and Resident #110). The findings included: 1) During the initial tour of the facility and initial resident interview conducted on 12/19/22 at 9:35 AM, Resident #38 stated she only receives showers one time per month. When asked to clarify, Resident #38 stated she prefers to have showers at least one time per week. During this interview, the surveyor observed that Resident #38 appeared unkempt. Record review revealed Resident #38 had a medical history significant for cerebral infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity, atrial fibrillation, kidney disease, depression, falls, and anxiety. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) was done for Resident #38 on 10/25/22. This MDS documented Resident #38 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicates she had moderate cognitive impairment. This MDS also documented Resident #38 was totally dependent…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-22 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 interviews and record reviews the facility failed to update the code status for 1 resident out of 3 sampled residents (Resident #106). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled Do Not Resuscitate Order with a revised date of [DATE] included: Our facility will not use cardiopulmonary resuscitation and related emergency measures to maintain life functions on a resident when there is a DO Not Resuscitate Order in effect. Record review for Resident #106 revealed that the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the most recent readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis Following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Right Dominant Side, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Hyperglycemia, Unspecified Severe Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Immunodeficiency, and Systemic Inflammation Response Syndrome (SIRS) of Non-Infectious Origin without Acute Organ Dysfunction. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #106 revealed the MDS was not…
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 before2022-12-22 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to secure the confidentiality of medical information for residents receiving dialysis for 10 (Resident #40, Resident #53, Resident #92, Resident #100, Resident #107, Resident #118, Resident #177, Resident #330, and Resident #424) out of 10 residents with dialysis services and the facility failed to secure the confidentiality of medical information for a resident receiving podiatry services (Resident #100). The findings included: Review of the facility policy titled Protected Health Information (PHI), Management and Protection of with a reviewed date of January 2022 included: Protected Health Information (PHI) shall not be used or disclosed except as permitted by current federal and state laws. It is the responsibility of all personnel who have access to resident and facility information to ensure that such information is managed and protected to prevent unauthorized release or disclosure. Physical access to health information is limited to individuals who are authorized to access the records or continuity 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 · D2022-12-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide fingernail care for 5 out of 6 residents reviewed for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care (Residents #79, Residents#112, Residents#39, Residents#68, Residents #110). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled Fingernails, Care of with a revised date of February 2022 included: The purpose of this procedure is to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed, and to prevent infections. Nail care includes regular trimming. Proper nail care can aid in the prevention of skin problems around the nail bed. Review of the facility's policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting with a revised date of January 2022, included: Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain food nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene. 1) Record review for Resident #79 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-22 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 nutrition for tube feeding for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for tube feedings (Resident #177). The findings included: Record review revealed Resident #177 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #177 had diagnoses included Stroke, End Stage Renal Disease (requiring dialysis), and a gastrostomy (feeding tube). Resident #177 was care planned for receiving Dialysis, feeding tube present, at risk for alteration in nutrition, and at risk for dehydration. A review of Resident #177's orders revealed an order dated 12/15/22 for Nepro tube feeding at 56 milliliters/hour (ml/hr) for 18 hours. On at 4:00 PM, and off at 10:00 AM. Further review of the resident's orders revealed an order dated 12/13/22 for dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (the facility had in-house dialysis). Resident #177 was observed on 12/19/22 at 9:30 AM receiving Nepro tube feedings at 65 ml/hr. Resident #177 was observed on 12/19/22 at 3:00 PM.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-22 · 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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to obtain an order and document use of oxygen or changing of oxygen tubing (Resident #43) and failed to date oxygen tubing and place signage for Oxygen in Use outside of resident's room (Resident #326), for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Respiratory therapy. The findings included: 1)During an observation on 12/19/22 at 10:25 AM of Resident #43 with oxygen on at 2 liters/minute via nasal cannula with the oxygen tubing dated 12/12/22. During an observation conducted on 12/20/22 at 8:00 AM of Resident #43 with oxygen on at 2 liters/minute via nasal cannula with the oxygen tubing dated 12/19/22. Record review revealed Resident #43 was admitted on [DATE] with a recent readmission date of 02/04/22. Diagnoses included: Atherosclerosis of Aorta, Thrombocytopenia, Cardiomegaly, and Anxiety. Review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #43 revealed that there was no active order for oxygen. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and 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 · D2022-12-22 · 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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to secure medications at the bedside for 2 of 39 sampled residents (Resident #49 and Resident 424), and facility failed to secure medications and supplies in the unlocked, unattended inpatient dialysis room. The findings included: Review of the facility policy titled Storage of Medications, revision date January 2022, revealed the following: Drugs and biologicals used in the facility are stored in locked compartments. The nursing staff is responsible for maintaining medication storage. Only persons authorized to prepare and administer medications have access to locked medications 1) During the initial tour of the facility conducted on 12/19/22 at 10:25 AM, the surveyor observed a bottle of prescription lotion in a basket in Resident #49's bedroom. The prescription label on the bottle noted a dispensed date of 03/13/22, but no expiration date. (Photographic evidence obtained). When the surveyor asked Resident #49 about the lotion, 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 · D2022-12-22 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
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 provide nourishing meals on dialysis days for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dialysis (Resident #49). The findings included: 1) During the initial tour of the facility and initial resident interview conducted on 12/19/22 at 10:25 AM, Resident #49 stated she received dialysis three times per week on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at an outside dialysis center. When asked if the facility provided her a lunch on her dialysis days, Resident #49 stated they do not. She told the surveyor I always keep a biscuit in my pocket because the facility did not provide a bag lunch. When asked if the facility provided her with a supplement or snack before leaving for her dialysis treatments, Resident #49 stated they did not. When asked how long she is gone for her dialysis appointments, Resident #49 stated she leaves the facility with a transportation service at 10:30 AM and returns to the facility around 4:30 PM on her dialysis days. Clinical records revealed Resident #49 had a medical history significant for end stage…
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 ONYX HEALTH — 11 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SINAI OPCO HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/01/2021 |
| SCHUSTER, RACHEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2021 |
| LEON, LISSETTE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/20/2021 |
| MEDEROS TRUJILLO, ORESTES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| PEREZ, BRAYAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2024 |
| RODRIGUEZ, VALERIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/05/2022 |
| ONYX HEALTHCARE CONSULTING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 79% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 105711. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-26, 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.