Solaris Healthcare Lely Palms
6135 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Naples, FL 34113 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 117 certified beds · (239) 775-7715 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)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (17% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2025
- it has 3 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $80,532 in federal fines (most recent 2025-07-29)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 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 | 4 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 fell from 3 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 | 7.3% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.8% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.2% | 2.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.9% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.4% | 14.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 4.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.3% | 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 | 8.7% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.8% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.0% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.5% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.20 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.53 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
50.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 346 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.1% 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 115 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 0.50 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 81% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 | 50.4%CMS range 44.7–57.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.6%CMS range 8.9–14.6 | 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 | 59.1% | 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 | 44.4% | 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 | 67.8% | 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 | 99.0% | 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 | 96.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 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 | 1.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 9.3%CMS range 6.3–13.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 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 117 beds and averages 106.1 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 11 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 3.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.83 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 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 3.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.88 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.97 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 17% is below the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-07-29 · 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
Based on record review, review of facility's policies and procedures, and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect residents' rights to be free from neglect by failing to follow safety precautions during transfers resulting in an avoidable fall for 1 (Resident #999) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents and failure to ensure timely post-fall evaluation.The findings includedReview of the facility's policy #60.41 Alleged Abuse /Potential Neglect/ Exploitation revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide an environment that promotes dignity and respect for all residents and one that prohibits abuse and/or neglect. Neglect is a failure or omission on the part of a care giver/facility to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress.Review of the facility's policy Assessing Falls and Their Causes documented with a review date of 12/10/2024 revealed, Steps in the Procedure after a Fall: If a resident has just fallen, or is found on the floor without a witness to the event, nursing staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2025-07-29 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure staff followed safety precautions while transferring 1 (Resident #999) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents, resulting in an avoidable with major injury requiring emergency transfer to an acute care hospital.The findings included:Review of the facility policy Assessing Falls and Their Causes revealed, Steps in the Procedure after a Fall: If a resident has just fallen, or is found on the floor without a witness to the event, nursing staff will record vital signs and evaluate for possible injuries to the head, neck spine and extremities. If there is evidence of a significant injury such as a fracture or bleeding, nursing staff will provide appropriate first aid. Notify the following individuals when a resident has a fall: The Director of Nursing (DON), the Nursing Supervisor on duty.Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #900 had a date of admission of 5/9/24was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE].…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-02-06 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect for 1 (Resident #27) of 2 residents reviewed for incontinent care by failing to provide incontinent care and services to meet the needs resulting in prolong skin exposure to urine resulting in moisture associated skin damage. The findings included: Review of the facility's Job Description for Certified Nursing Assistants included Safety: the CAN (Certified Nursing Assistant) Reports all accidents and incidents observed on shift. Nursing Care and Responsibilities included, Assists residents with bowel and bladder functions; Ensures the resident personal care needs are being met in accordance with residents' wishes. The facility policy for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Supporting page 1 indicated, Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently . (including) Elimination (toileting). The facility policy for Resident…
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 · E2025-02-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and procedures, and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a care plan that described the resident's medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs and preferences and how the facility will assist in meeting these needs and preferences for 4 (Resident #46, # 54, #42 and #55) of 4 residents residing on the memory care unit. The failure to complete an individualized care plan has the potential to impact the resident's quality of life and quality of care. The findings included: The facility policy Baseline Care Plan and Summary documented the facility will develop and implement a care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person centered care of the resident. 1. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #42 had a readmission date of 2/23/24. Diagnoses included severe dementia with behavioral disturbance, depression, degenerative disease of the nervous system, and anxiety. The clinical record documented a brief interview for mental status…
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 before2025-02-06 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and procedures, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure they provided an ongoing program to support the residents in their choice of activities which are designed to meet the resident's interests and support the resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 5 (Resident #46, #54, #42, #55 and #5) reviewed for involvement in activity programs. The findings included: Review of the facility policy 2.8 Activity Programs revealed, Activity programs designed to meet the needs of each resident are available on a daily basis . are designed to encourage maximum individual participation and are geared to meet the individual needs . Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #42 had a readmission date of 2/23/24. Diagnoses included severe dementia with behavioral disturbance, depression, degenerative disease of the nervous system, and anxiety. The care plan initiated on 3/5/24 indicated Resident #42, Prefers not to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-06 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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, review of facility policy and procedure, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat 1 (Resident #46) of 22 residents observed on the memory care unit with respect and dignity during medication administration. The findings included: The facility Policy Quality of Life - Dignity documented Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect and individuality . Residents shall be treated with dignity and respect at all times . the resident will be assisted in maintaining and enhancing his or her self-esteem and self-worth . The facility policy IIBI: Administration Procedures For All Medications documented To administer medications in a safe and effective manner . Provide privacy for resident during administration of medications . Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #46 had an admission date of 8/1/23 with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance and seizures. Review of the Brief Interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-06 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
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, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide Physical and Occupational therapy to 1 (Resident #130) of 2 residents reviewed for specialized rehabilitative services. The findings included: Review of the clinical record for Resident #130 revealed an admission date of 1/24/25. Diagnoses included Multiple Sclerosis, Urinary Tract Infection, Depression, Anxiety Disorder, and a history of falling. Review of the five-day Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #130 scored 10 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status, indicative of moderate cognitive impairment. On 2/3/25 at 11:00 a.m., in an interview Resident #130 said she felt like her husband had dumped her at the facility. She stated staff were not doing anything for her since her admission and she had not received any rehabilitative services. Review of the physician's order revealed an order dated 1/24/25 to admit Resident #130 to the facility for Rehabilitation services. A physician's order dated 1/24/25 read, PT…
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 · E2022-10-25 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, staff, family and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure ordered therapeutic diets were correctly provided for 3 (Residents, #1, #158, and #93) of 6 residents reviewed for food and nutrition. The findings included: 1. On 9/19/22 at 12:24 p.m., Resident #1 observed eating lunch which consisted of vegetables, mashed potatoes and mixed vegetables. No protein, meat or fish was observed on the plate for lunch. Resident #1 said she did not know why she did not get any meat or protein. She said, It would be nice to have some meat. Photographic evidence obtained Resident #1's lunch meal included a nonfat yogurt. Observation of the meal ticket showed the resident was lactose intolerant. Photographic evidence obtained On 9/20/22 clinical record review for Resident #1 revealed an order summary documenting the resident was lactose intolerance. The ordered diet was carbohydrate controlled, no added salt, mechanical soft texture. On 9/21/22 at 12:05 p.m., the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) confirmed Resident #1 was on soft mechanical diet and was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-10-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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, resident and staff interviews, and resident record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity for 2 (Residents, #11 and #158) of 2 residents reviewed for dignity. The findings included: 1. Record review revealed Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments noted Resident #11 was discharged to an acute care hospital on 8/20/22 and returned to the facility on 9/1/22. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] noted a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. On 9/19/22 at 11:38 a.m., Resident #11 was observed sitting in her wheelchair wearing a hospital gown. Resident was asked if she wanted to be in a hospital gown. Resident #11 said, I don't have my clothes they are in the other room. I would get dressed if I had my clothes. Observation of the resident's closet with her permission showed one light mint colored t-shirt and no other clothes. On 9/20/22 at 9:05 a.m., Resident #11…
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 · E2021-04-14 · tag F0563 — failed to protect the right to visitors — patternHonor the resident's right to receive visitors of his or her choosing, at the time of his or her choosing.
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, staff and resident interview the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation to promote residents rights to receive visitors. The findings included: The resident rights and responsibilities included in the admission packet specified, Each patient has the right to . visiting with any person of your choice during visiting hours . Center visiting hours shall be flexible, taking into consideration special circumstances such as, but not limited to, out-of-town visitors and working relatives or friends . The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) memo QSO-20-39 (Revised Nursing Home Visitation) revised 3/10/21 read Facilities should allow indoor visitation at all times and for all residents (regardless of vaccination status) except for a few circumstances when visitation should be limited due to a high risk of COVID-19 transmission . These scenarios include limiting indoor visitation for: Unvaccinated residents, if the nursing home's COVID-19 county positivity rate is >…
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 before2021-04-14 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to implement meaningful resident centered activities to meet the interest and well-being of 13 (Resident #45, #56, #57, #15, #6, #88, #80, #83, #27, #10, #38, #9, and #492) of 13 residents reviewed for activities. The lack of an individualized activity program had the potential to cause social isolation, apathy, and boredom. The facility also failed to promote communal activities and dining while adhering to core principles of COVID-19 infection prevention. The findings included: Review of the facility policy Activity and Recreation Service (dated July 2019) documented the activity programs are provided to enable patients to achieve the highest level of physical, mental, psychosocial, and spiritual well-being. The program of activities is designed to recognize and accommodate patient limitations while maximizing strengths, interests, and abilities. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services memorandum (QSO-20-39-NH) revised…
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 before2021-04-14 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, review of facility policy, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to provide timely assistance in a manner to promote dignity for 3 (#492, #10, and #77) of 3 residents reviewed who are dependent on staff for activities of daily living. The findings included: Review of the facility's admission packet (undated) revealed a Florida Patient /Resident Rights and Responsibilities which read residents . have the right to be treated with courtesy, respect and full recognition of your dignity and individuality by all employees.with whom you come in contact . Each patient has the right to. Privacy in treatment and in caring for personal needs; to close room doors and to have facility personnel knock before entering the room . Be treated courteously, fairly, and with the fullest measure of dignity. 1. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #492 had an admission date of 3/29/21. The care plan noted the resident had alteration in neurological status and required cueing and reorientation as needed. Resident #492 also had self-care deficit related to a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-04-14 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a safe, sanitary, comfortable and home like environment for residents. Not maintaining a sanitary environment has the potential to spread disease causing organisms. The findings included: On 4/11/21 at 11:00 a.m., during a tour of the facility, the following observations were made: room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with peeling wall with brown substance on the wall behind the resident's bed. The toilet was rusted and constantly flushing. The raised toilet seat was broken. Photographic Evidence Obtained room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to have peeling baseboards. A large crack observed in the wall, and a hole in the wall behind the door. Photographic Evidence Obtained room [ROOM NUMBER] had a heavily soiled floor with grime and debris around the base of the toilet in the bathroom. Photographic Evidence Obtained room [ROOM NUMBER] had peeling baseboard walls behind the bed.…
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 · D2021-04-14 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the MDS (Minimum data set) assessment accurately reflected the resident's urinary status for 1 (Resident #6) of 1 resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. Inaccurate MDS assessments can result in a resident not receiving appropriate health care. The findings included: On 4/11/21 at 10:30 a.m., and 4/12/21 at 11:07 a.m., Resident #6 was observed with an indwelling urinary catheter (Catheter placed in the bladder to drain urine). The catheter was in a privacy bag attached to the side of the bed. Record review on 4/12/21 at 3:30 p.m., showed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]. The assessment noted Resident #6 was always incontinent of urine but did not note the use of an indwelling urinary catheter. The clinical record did not include a care plan for the indwelling urinary catheter. On 04/13/21 at 9:17 a.m., in an interview Registered Nurse (RN) staff F said Resident #6 had a chronic…
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 · D2021-04-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedure and staff interviews, the facility failed to appropriately store and protect residents' medications in a manner to prevent loss and reduced efficacy for 1 of 3 medication carts and 1 of 2 medication rooms. The findings included: The facility policy 5.3 (October 2016) Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles specified . Facility should ensure that the medications and biologicals for each resident are stored in the containers in which they were originally received. On 4/13/21 at 9:20 a.m., reviewed medication cart for 500 hall with LPN Staff K. Observed four loose pills and two loose predated menthol medication patches in the cart. LPN Staff K, confirmed she could not identify the loose pills and which residents the loose medications belonged to. Observed a bag of intravenous micafungin (medication to treat fungal infection) 100 milligrams belonging to Resident #542 stored on the shelf, out of brown plastic bag and in direct light. The medication label from pharmacy specified to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$80,532 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $46,176 — penalty dated 2025-07-29
- $34,356 — penalty dated 2025-02-06
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 SOLARIS HEALTHCARE — 22 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 | 2 of 5 | 4.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LP SNF OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/20/2024 |
| CH LP HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/20/2024 |
| SK LP HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/20/2024 |
| BUXBAUM, MIRIAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/20/2024 |
| WAHL, EZRIEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2024 |
| SIEGEL, GEORGE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/20/2024 |
| LP SNF CONSULTING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/21/2025 |
| SOLARIS LICENSING | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2025 |
| ELTERMAN, FRANK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2024 |
| PETIT, JESTA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/20/2024 |
| RIDINGER, KIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/20/2024 |
| KLEIN, SOLOMON | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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 $518K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 105499. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-06, 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.