Adviniacare At Naples
7801 Airport Pulling Road N, Naples, FL 34109 · For profit - Corporation · 40 certified beds · (239) 566-8077 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $231,990 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-18)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 fell from 2 to 1 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 | 18.4% | 8.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.1% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 6.9% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 11.8% | 0.7% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.5% | 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 | 10.8% | 2.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 33.3% | 14.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.3% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.8% | 10.5% | 21.2% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 0.0% | 8.6% | 17.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.5% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.1% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.9% | 9.1% | 12.0% | 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.
59.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 184 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 39.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 48 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 0.67 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 59.7%CMS range 51.8–67.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 7.3–14.5 | 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 | 39.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 37.5% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 41.7% | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 6.8% | 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 | 8.4%CMS range 5.2–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 40 beds and averages 39.9 residents a day — about 100% occupied, or roughly 0 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 3.55 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.82 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 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 3.45 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.59 on weekdays — 4% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.91 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
21 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-04-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, review of facility's policies and procedures and staff interviews, the facility failed to adequately supervise 3 (Residents #1, #2 and #3) of 3 cognitively impaired residents to prevent incidents of unsafe wandering and elopement. On 12/9/24 at 2:15 p.m., Resident #1, who had a diagnosis of Dementia, severe cognitive impairment and history of attempted elopement exited the facility through the front door and set off the alarm. Staff turned off the alarm without verifying the whereabouts of residents with wander alarm bracelets. On 12/9/24 at approximately 2:17 p.m., a staff member who was outside on break, saw the resident wandering unsupervised in the parking lot and returned him to the facility. On 2/24/25 at 4:30 p.m., Resident #2, who had severe cognitive impairment, was ambulatory and wore a wander alarm bracelet exited the facility without staff knowledge. A friend coming to visit the resident found him wandering unsupervised in the parking lot and notified 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-04-18 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — patternAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility administration failed to utilize its resources effectively to ensure the safety of 3 (Residents #1, #2, and #3) of 3 cognitively impaired residents and prevent multiple incidents of unsafe wandering and elopement. Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment, was at risk for elopement and used a wander alarm bracelet. On 12/9/24 at 2:15 p.m., staff did not appropriately respond to the door alarm when Resident #1 exited the facility. On 12/9/24 at approximately 2:17 p.m., a staff member who was outside on her break found the resident wandering in the parking lot unsupervised and returned him to the facility. Resident #2 had severe cognitive impairment, was at risk for elopement and used a wander alarm bracelet. On 2/24/25 at 4:30 p.m., staff did not adequately supervise the resident. Resident #2 exited the facility without staff knowledge. A friend coming to visit found Resident #2 wandering in the parking lot unsupervised. He notified the Director of Nursing (DON) who took the resident back inside. Resident #3 had…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-04-18 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — patternSet 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate elopement incidents for 3 (Residents #1, #2, and #3) of 3 cognitively impaired residents reviewed for elopement and failed to implement appropriate systemic corrective actions to prevent further incidents of unsafe wandering and elopement of mobile and confused residents. On 12/9/24 at 2:15 p.m., Resident #1 who had severe cognitive impairment and wore a wander alert bracelet exited the facility, setting off the door alarm. Staff did not appropriately respond to the alarm. A staff member who was outside on her break found the resident wandering unsupervised in the parking lot and brought him back. On 2/25/25 at 4:30 p.m., staff did not adequately supervise Resident #2 who had severe cognitive impairment and wore a wander alert bracelet. A friend coming to visit Resident #2 found him wandering unsupervised in the parking lot and notified the facility. The facility has not determined how Resident #2 was able to leave the facility despite the wander alert bracelet. On 3/29/25 at…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-11-25 · 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 record review, review of facility policies and procedures, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to follow the established plan of care for safe transfer, resulting in an avoidable fall and fall related major injury for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 residents reviewed. The findings included: Review of the clinical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 7/4/24. Diagnoses included morbid obesity and left artificial knee joint. The 5-day scheduled Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with a target date of 9/2/24 noted Resident #3 was dependent (Helper does all of the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity) for toilet transfer (Ability to safely get on and off a toilet or commode). Resident #3's cognition was intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15. The care plan initiated on 7/5/24 noted the resident had Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Deficit with a goal to improve ADLs. The interventions included and specified the use of a full body mechanical…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-03-07 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, facility policy review, resident and staff interviews and medical record and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect residents' rights to be free from neglect by failing to provide a safe environment for 2 (Residents #243 and #20) of 5 residents reviewed for avoidable falls and accidents. The findings included: The facility policy provided for Fall Prevention and Management created 7/2018 and last revised 1/2023 states: The Fall Risk Evaluation (completed on admission) will determine fall risk factors. 1. Fall risk assessments will be completed for all residents; initially on admission/readmission, quarterly, significant change and after an identified fall; 2. As part of the assessment, the nurse will help identify individuals with a history of falls and risk factors for subsequent falling; Staff will ask the resident and the caregiver about history of falling . staff will record history of one or more recent falls . root causes for fall history will be…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-03-07 · 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, record review, facility policy review, resident and staff interviews and medical record and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 2 (Residents #20 and #243) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents. The findings included: 1. The facility policy provided for Fall Prevention and Management created 7/2018 and last revised 1/2023 stated: The Fall Risk Evaluation (completed on admission) will determine fall risk factors. 1. Fall risk assessments will be completed for all residents; initially on admission/readmission, quarterly, significant change and after an identified fall; 2. As part of the assessment, the nurse will help identify individuals with a history of falls and risk factors for subsequent falling; Staff will ask the resident and the caregiver about history of falling . staff will record history of one or more recent falls . root causes for fall history will be identified. 3. In addition, the nurse shall assess 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2022-07-07 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff and resident interviews, clinical records review, and facility policy review the facility failed to assist in obtaining routine or emergency dental care for 1 (Resident #2) complaining of chronic dental pain of 12 sampled residents reviewed for dental. The findings included: Review of facility policy titled, Dental Services, reviewed 2/3/2021 stated, The resident shall retain the right to go to a dentist of his/her choice in preference to the dentist contracted by the facility. The facility shall arrange for transportation for residents, if dental services are provided outside of the facility. If at any time a resident, family or staff member believes that a resident needs a dental evaluation, arrangement will be made with a dental consultant . On 7/5/22 at 1:11 p.m., Resident #2 said, My tooth hurts. It is hard to eat. she said she wanted to see her dentist and the facility was not helping to make arrangement to see the dentist. On 7/6/22 at 12:30 p.m., Resident #2 was observed eating lunch. The resident was on a soft mechanical diet. When asked about her tooth…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-05-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, review of facility's policies and procedure, resident and staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services to 2 (Residents #47 and #48) of 2 residents receiving intravenous antibiotics through peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs).The findings included:Review of the facility provided policy for PICC Line Dressing Changes last revised on 2/2026 revealed on page 1, #4. When a transparent dressing is applied over a gauze dressing it is considered a gauze dressing and is changed every 48 hours or sooner.Review of the clinical record for Resident #48 revealed an admission date of 5/19/26. Admitting diagnoses included infection following a procedure. On 5/19/26 at 7:47 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) Staff A documented in a nursing progress note that Resident #48 was admitted to the facility with orders to continue antibiotics until 5/27/26. The note documented that Resident #48 had an existing intravenous site (IV)…
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 · D2026-05-28 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the nurse staffing data at the beginning of each shift for 3 consecutive days on 5/23/26, 5/24/26, and 5/25/26.The findings included: On Tuesday 5/26/26 at 9:00 a.m., the nurse staffing data was observed displayed behind a plastic stand at the nurse's station. The nurse staffing data was dated 5/22/26 (Friday).Photographic evidence obtainedOn 5/28/26 at 8:51 a.m., in an interview, Registered Nurse (RN) Staff B said the night shift nurse should have changed the nurse staffing data over the weekend and on Monday. She said she worked the day shift over the weekend and did not notice the nurse staffing data was not changed on 5/23/26 (Saturday), 5/24/26 (Sunday), or 5/25/26.On 5/28/26 at 8:54 a.m., in an interview, Medical Records Staff F said she was responsible to post the nurse staffing data Monday through Friday but did not work on Monday or Tuesday. She said that in her absence, the Director of Nursing (DON) completed the nurse staffing data sheets and would have arranged to have it posted.On 5/28/26 at 9:00 a.m., in…
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 before2026-05-28 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, facility policy review, resident, family member and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure dental services were appropriately coordinated for 1 (Resident #39) of 2 residents reviewed for dental services. The facility failed to maintain documentation of dental consultations in the medical record, failed to follow up on recommendations made during a dental consultation and failed to ensure the Resident was informed of financial responsibility and payment options for recommended dental services. These failures have delayed necessary dental care and impeded the Residents ability to make informed decisions regarding treatment and associated costs.The findings included:Review of the facility Dental Services policy (last revised October 2022) noted routine and emergency dental care services are available to meet the resident's oral health services in accordance with the resident's assessment and plan of care . Routine and 24-hour emergency dental services are provided to our residents through: a contract agreement with a licensed dentist that comes to 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 · D2026-05-28 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have a binding arbitration agreement for 3 (Residents #1, #20 and #28) of 3 residents reviewed that explicitly states that neither the resident nor his or her representative is required to sign an agreement for binding arbitration as a condition of admission to, or as a requirement to continue to receive care at, the facility. This has the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility.Review of the facility's binding arbitration agreement (not dated) revealed that it did not state that signing this agreement is not a requirement for admission. The signature page of the document states the undersigned acknowledge that each of them has read all six (6) pages of this agreement . that by signing this agreement each has waived his/her rights to a trial, before a judge and/or jury, and that each of them voluntarily consents to all terms of this agreement. Residents #1, #20 and #28 were sampled from the facility provided list of admissions who had signed the arbitration agreement.On 5/27/26 at 1:20 p.m., in an…
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 · D2024-08-06 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to report an incident of possible neglect to the State Survey Agency related to a medication error for a critical medication for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed. The findings included: The facility's policy and procedure for Coumadin Management with a creation date of 10/2022 noted, It is the policy that residents on Coumadin therapy will be monitored to assist in maintaining recommended laboratory parameters as established by the attending physician . Prior to and with each medication administration, the nurse will: a. Review the Medication Administration Record [MAR] to ensure consistency in medication dose orders, b. Document the most recent lab result (PT/INR), c. The physician has been notified of laboratory results, and d. Document the next laboratory draw date is identified. Licensed staff receiving laboratory results are required to update the MAR, notify the physician of results, and adjust dosage orders as necessary. Changes in dosage require the entire medication order to be…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 staff and resident interview, medical record review, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to have documentation of a thorough investigation for 1 (Resident #243) of 1 resident reviewed for elopement. The findings included: The facility's event investigation guidelines (undated) for suspected neglect noted to include time frame date, shift, and time of report or discovery of the event, including specific individuals involved . Elopement: Investigation should begin immediately. Summarize what was done in the investigative process and your conclusion with supportive evidence to support the root cause of the incident. Include all details of when, what etc. Include facts of evidence obtained. Consistencies in consistencies, effect on resident, staff involved. Review of the clinical record for Resident #243 revealed an admission date of 12/6/23 for Rehabilitation services after a fracture of the right femur (thigh bone). Diagnoses included Transient Ischemic Attacks (TIA), Dementia 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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan was developed and implemented for 1(Resident #196) of 6 baseline care plan reviewed to ensure it includes the instructions/interventions needed to provide effective and person-centered plan of care that meet the professional standards of quality of care. The findings included: On 3/4/24 at 11:09 a.m., during an interview with Resident #196, he said he has a displaced fracture of his left ulna, and the orthopedic surgeon told him when he was discharged from the hospital, Resident #196 needed to see him in his office to determine what the next course of action, needed to be taken, to address the left ulna fracture. Resident #196 said since his admission on [DATE], no one had explained to him the plan of care related to his left ulna fracture and why he had not seen the orthopedic surgeon in 3 days after his admission to the facility as he was told by the orthopedic surgeon when he was in the hospital. A review 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 · Dcited before2024-03-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation interview and record review the facility failed to ensure they had a physician's order for the continuation, flushing and dressing change of an intravenous peripheral catheter (IVPC) for 1 Resident (#197) of 1 resident reviewed with an IVPC as related to facility's policy IVPC care and in accordance with the professional standard of care for IVPC. The findings included: On 3/4/24 at 11:32 a.m., an observation revealed the IVPC dressing located on Resident #197's right forearm was not dated with the time it was inserted or the last time the IVPC site dressing was changed. On 3/4/24 at 11:32 a.m., during an interview with Resident #197, she said a facility nurse inserted the IVPC last week so she could receive a bag of intravenous (IV) fluid due her lab results. She said since the insertion of the IVPC no one had flushed the IVPC until today or changed the IVPC dressing to her right forearm. She said the IVPC site does not hurt but she didn't know why the nurse did not remove the IVPC after she had received the IV fluids ordered by the physician. On 3/4/24 at…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0882 — isolatedDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, employee file review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure infection control management staff had the proper infection prevention education and training as required. The findings include: On review of facility policy titled, Infection Control Program Policy IC-2 last revised 2/2023 indicates that the infection prevention and control program is a facility-wide effort involving all disciplines and individuals and is an integral part of the quality assurance and performance improvement program. Procedure: Coordination and Oversight a. The infection prevention and control program is coordinated and overseen by an infection prevention specialist (infection preventionist). b. The qualifications and job responsibilities of infection Preventionist are outlined in the infection Preventionist Job Description. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 3:10 p.m., Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that she was the infection control nurse for the facility. DON stated that she had not taken any formal education to become the facilities…
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 · E2022-07-07 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide 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, record review, review of facility's policy and procedure, and staff interview, the facility failed to have documentation of consistent monitoring of weight, meals, and prescribed supplement intake to evaluate the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for 3 (Resident #16, #9, and #174) of 5 sampled residents identified at risk for impaired nutrition and weight loss. The findings included: The facility Policy, Weight Policy (revised 2/7/21) documented, It is the policy of Pointe Group Care that residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight and protein levels, unless the residents clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible. Weight-Weight can be a useful indicator of nutritional status, when evaluated within the context of the individuals personal history and overall condition . Procedure: 1. Each resident should be weighed on admission or readmission (to establish a baseline weight), weekly for the first 4 weeks and at least monthly…
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 · D2022-07-07 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, review of facility policy and procedure, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain the urinary catheter for 1 (Resident #323) of 1 resident reviewed for indwelling catheter care. The findings included: The facility policy Indwelling Urinary Catheter Insertion and Maintenance-Male Resident (revised 2/3/33), documented.Assessment: Physician's order for catheterization, type and or specimen collection . Purpose of catheterization. .Urinary Catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) Maintenance: .Maintain unobstructed urine flow by: Keeping the catheter and collection tube free from kinking. Keeping the collection bag below the level of the bladder at all times. Emptying the collecting bag regularly using a separate, clean collecting container for each resident. On 7/5/22 at 1:00 p.m., in an interview Resident # 323 said no one takes care of me here. I had to hire an aide to take care of me. Resident # 323 said he has a catheter, but staff do not provide care for it, my…
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 · D2022-07-07 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, policy review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1(Resident #323) of 12 residents reviewed for accidents was assessed for alternative interventions prior to the use of grab bars. This had the potential to have grab bars installed when alternatives with less chance of negative consequences could be utilized. The findings included: The facility policy Side Rails (revised 2/10/21) documented, .No matter the purpose for use, bed rails and other bed accessories, although prescribed to improve functional independence with bed mobility and transfers, can increase resident safety risk. Procedure: 1. Resident Assessment a. Before admission, prospective residents will be screened to help determine if care needs may necessitate specialized beds or accessories. c. Assess the resident to identify appropriate alternative prior to installing bed rails On 7/5/22 at 2:14 p.m., Resident #323 was observed in bed with grab bars raised on both sides of the bed. Resident #323 said he asked for the grab bars to assist with turning himself in…
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 · D2022-07-07 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation resident and staff interview, the facility failed to honor food preferences for 1 (Resident #177) of 3 residents reviewed. This has the potential for complications if allergies to certain foods are served. The findings included: On 7/7/22 record review revealed documentation Resident #177 had a Gluten allergy. The meal ticket noted allergies, none; dislikes, No Gluten, no Barley, no Bread, no Cake, no Cookies, no Pasta, and no Pies. The bottom of the meal ticket noted, Allergic to gluten. Photographic evidence obtained. On 7/5/22 at 1:00 p.m. and on 7/6/22 at 12:10 p.m., Resident #177 was observed having lunch. He was served bread on both days. On 7/6/22 at 12:10 p.m., Resident #177 said he receives bread with his meals and he is not suppose to have it. Resident #177's spouse was present during the interview and confirmed he shouldn't have bread and receives it with his meals. On 7/7/22 at 11:30 a.m., The Director of Dietary said if residents have an allergy or a dislike for a food item listed on their meal tickets, then they should not be receiving it.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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, review of policies and procedure and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the hand washing sink in the kitchenette was functioning for staff use. The failure to maintain the function of the sink had the potential for water borne pathogens to grow in the standing water. The facility failed to properly date and label resident food items stored in the facility kitchenette refrigerator. The failure to date, label and dispose of expired foods placed residents at risk for developing food borne illnesses. The findings included: The facility policy Food Storage-Resident Food (revised 2/2022), documented, Purpose: To ensure food safety and prevent the risk of food borne illness. Policy: .If storage units are provided in community areas, those units shall be equipped with thermometers and shall hold foods which are sealed, labeled and dated. Units shall be routinely cleaned and monitored by the Housekeeping Department with the assistance of the Dietary Manager to maintain sanitary units and to discard expired foods. On 7/5/22 at 9:05 a.m., during a tour of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$231,990 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $184,425 — penalty dated 2025-04-18
- $10,033 — penalty dated 2024-11-25
- $37,532 — penalty dated 2024-03-07
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ADVINIACARE — 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| FREDERICK S FRANKEL TRUST | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 04/01/2021 |
| BERKOWITZ, BENJAMIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| LABELLA, CATERINA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| TALAMONA, RAYMOND | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| SPECTOR, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| POINTE GROUP CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| BOSWELL, SALLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| ELTERMAN, FRANK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| JEAN, DARLINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| TUROFSKY, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| WILHELM, NAFTALI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| BERKOWITZ, DAVID | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| MEYSTEL, YOSEF | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| 7801 AIRPORT PULLING ROAD, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| CURIS SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| DAVID A BERKOWITZ REVOC TR DAVID BERKOWITZ TTEE | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| YOSEF MEYSTEL DECLARATION OF TR OF YOSEF MEYSTEL TTEE | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $798K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% 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. 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 105995. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-28, 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.