Orange Park Rehabilitation And Nursing Center
2029 Professional Center Dr, Orange Park, FL 32073 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 105 certified beds · (904) 272-6194 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 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 | 5.1% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.7% | 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 | 1.9% | 0.7% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 59.6% | 4.6% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger 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 | 3.7% | 2.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.3% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.5% | 14.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.5% | 10.5% | 21.2% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.7% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.3% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.1% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.36 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.91 | 1.15 | 1.80 | typical |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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.
46.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 76 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.0% 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 100 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 46.6%CMS range 37.0–57.4 | 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 | 12.1%CMS range 8.8–16.8 | 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 | 66.0% | 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 | 63.0% | 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 | 49.0% | 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 | 99.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.4% | 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 | 8.5%CMS range 4.7–13.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 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 105 beds and averages 97.5 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.17 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.70 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.63 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a staff interview, record review, and a review of the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to update a resident's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) to include the resident's mental illness diagnosis for one (Resident #11) of two residents reviewed for PASRR completion from a total survey sample of 31 residents. The findings include: A review of the medical record revealed that Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder - bipolar type and unspecified mood [affective] disorder. On 5/13/2025 at 11:09 AM, further review of the record revealed a PASRR completed on 7/11/2020 that did not document the resident's mental illness diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder - bipolar type, or unspecified mood [affective] disorder. A review of the resident's Annual minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/4/2024, revealed that the resident was diagnosed with epilepsy or seizure disorder,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 interviews, record review, and a review of the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to provide one (Resident #25) of two residents reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) who had diagnoses indicating a serious mental illness (SMI) on admission, with a Level II PASRR screening. The findings include: A review of Resident #25's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a completed PASRR Level I dated 10/18/2024, which was located in the miscellaneous section of the EMR. The 10/18/2024 Level I PASRR indicated the need for a Level II screening to be conducted. No Level II screening was found in the record. The 3008 Hospital Transfer Form dated 10/31/2024 noted a primary diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. Other diagnoses found in the resident's record included cerebral palsy, schizoaffective disorder - depressive type; major depressive disorder - recurrent/severe with psychotic symptoms;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, a staff interview, and a review of the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to address anticoagulant therapy for one (Resident #65) of 25 residents whose care plans were reviewed, from total survey sample of 31 residents. The findings include: A review of the medical record revealed that Resident #65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), traumatic amputation of the left great toe, PVD (peripheral vascular disease), bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, partial traumatic amputation of the left 5th toe, chronic pain syndrome, and unspecified heart failure. A review of the admission MDS (minimum date set) assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 4/18/25 revealed that the resident had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 15 out of 15 possible points, indicating intact cognition. Section N of the assessment indicated the 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 · D2025-05-15 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to provide a consistent, viable means of communicating in a language that the resident understood for one (Resident #42) of 31 sampled residents. Failure to provide interpretation during care may result in the resident's needs not being recognized or met. The findings include: During a tour of the facility on 5/13/2025 at 11:48 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) L stated Resident #42 did not speak English. He spoke an African language. She was not sure which one; she had never heard of the language before. She did not know what country he was from. CNA L stated the resident had learned to say yes and no or shake/nod his head when asked questions. When he spoke, she did not understand him because he spoke in his native language. During an observation of Resident #42's room on 5/13/2025 at 11:49 AM , no communication board was observed. No interpreter services contact information was posted in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-15 · 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 kitchen food service observations, staff interviews, facility record review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food handling practices to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness, by failing to record dish machine temperatures, and by failing to seal and date mark open bundles of bread on the bread rack. Food handling and sanitation is important in health care settings serving nursing home residents. Unsafe food handling practices represent a potential source of pathogen exposure. The findings include: A tour of the kitchen was conducted on 5/12/25 at 11:00 AM. During the tour, the dish machine temperature log for April 2025 was reviewed and was incomplete. Temperatures were not recorded for breakfast or lunch on 4/25/25 or 4/26/25. Temperatures were not recorded for breakfast, lunch or dinner from 4/27/25 through 4/30/25. (Photographic evidence obtained) No date markings were observed on one open package of noodles or five open bundles of bread located on the bread rack in the dry storage room. Another…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-29 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for one (Resident #2) of 11 sampled residents who were receiving oxygen therapy, from a total sample of 28 residents. Resident #2's oxygen flow rate was set higher than the physician ordered. The findings include: On 06/26/2023 at 12:02 PM, Resident #2 was observed lying in bed at an elevated position wearing a nasal cannula (device used to provide supplemental oxygen). Resident #2 reported her oxygen should have been set to run at 2 liters per minute (L/min). Resident #2's oxygen concentrator was observed to be set on 3 L/min. (Photographic evidence obtained) A review of Resident #2's physician's order dated 05/20/2023, revealed that she should have been receiving oxygen at 2 L/min via nasal cannula as needed. (Photographic evidence obtained) On 06/27/2023 at 11:12 AM, another observation was made of Resident #2, who was sleeping in bed with her nasal cannula on and her oxygen concentrator set at 2.5 L/min. (Photographic…
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 before2021-10-08 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record review and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure that two (Resident #228 and #229) of three residents on oxygen therapy, received the correct number of liters of oxygen ordered by the physician and failed to ensure one (Resident #17) of one resident reviewed for tracheostomies, received tracheostomy care as ordered by the physician, from a total sample of 34 residents. This could result in the resident not receiving appropriate care and/or clinical complications. The findings include: 1. A review of Resident #228's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/01/21 with a primary diagnosis of Corona Virus 2019 (COVID 19) and type two diabetes. A review of the physician's orders revealed, oxygen at 2-3L/min continuous via nasal cannula. The baseline care plan did not indicate oxygen therapy. On 10/05/21 at 11:40 AM, Resident #228 was observed lying in bed in supine position with oxygen via nasal cannula. An observation of her oxygen concentrator…
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 · E2021-10-08 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate administration of medication for one (Resident #33) resident, failed to ensure accurate records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs for one (Resident #2) resident, and failed to assure accurate storage of eyedrops during medication storage review for two of two carts reviewed, from a total of four carts in the facility. The findings include: On 10/05/21 at 12:00 PM, medication for Resident #33 was observed at her bedside. (Photographic evidence obtained) A record review for Resident #33 revealed an admission date of 2/15/21. A review of her quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating cognitively intact. The resident required glasses for impaired vision. On 10/05/21 at 12:33 PM, Resident #33 stated that the nurse left the medication at her bedside after she asked the nurse what…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-10-08 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to provide a discharge summary for one (Residents #75) of three residents sampled, which included a recapitulation of each resident's stay, inclusive of diagnoses, course of illness/treatment or therapy, and pertinent lab, radiology, and consultation results, and a final summary of the residents' status at the time of the discharge that was available for release to authorized persons and agencies, with the consent of the resident or resident's representative. The facility also failed to include in the discharge summary, a reconciliation of all pre-discharge medications with the resident's post-discharge medications (both prescribed and over-the-counter), as well as a post-discharge plan of care that was developed with the participation of the resident and, with the resident's consent, the resident representative(s), which would assist each resident to adjust to his or her new living environment. The findings include: A record review for Resident #79 revealed an admission date of 7/12/21 and discharge date of 7/15/21. There…
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 · D2021-10-08 · 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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #188) of three residents reviewed for accidents, from a total sample of 34 residents. The findings include: A record review for Resident #188 revealed an admission date of 10/16/2017. Her primary medical diagnosis was dementia with behavioral disturbance. Secondary diagnoses included schizophrenia and need for assistance with personal care. A review of Resident #188's annual minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a brief interview for mental status score of 4, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. On 10/04/2021 at 11:20 AM, Resident #188 was observed lying in bed. She was positioned diagonally in the bed with her feet hanging off the left side of the bed. Two floor mats were stacked against the wall. An event history note, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-10-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to obtain routine dental care for one (Resident #47) of one resident sampled for dental services from a total sample of 34 residents. The findings include: On 10/4/2021 during a tour of the facility at 11:13 AM, Resident #47 stated she was awaiting a dental consult to have two of her teeth removed before she could have knee surgery. A review of the clinical record for Resident #47 revealed a 7/9/2021 order for dental consult - Necrotic teeth extraction prior to knee surgery. On 9/30/2021 a second order for dental consult revealed - Extraction of decayed teeth. There was no documentation in the residents' record showing the dental consult order for 7/9/21 was completed. Further review of the clinical record for Resident #47 revealed an admission date of 8/14/20 with a primary diagnosis of unilateral primary osteoarthritis, right knee. A review of the annual minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed 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 · Dcited before2021-10-08 · 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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a refrigerator in the nourishment room was maintained at acceptable temperatures and failed to store and label items appropriately in 1 of 1 nourishment rooms. The findings include: On 10/7/21 at 12:00 PM, the facility's nourishment room was observed and revealed the following: - Refrigerator temperature log was missing dates for 9/2, 9/3, and 9/16. (Copy obtained) - The freezer had ice cream in it but did not have a thermometer in it. - Freezer temperature logs for September and October 2021 were blank. (Copy obtained) - Refrigerator had a blue spill on bottom of unit. (Photo obtained) - Pizza box with 1 slice of pizza in the refrigerator with no name or date on the box. (Photo taken) - One container of cheese and ham in the refrigerator with no name and a date of 7/22/21 on it. (Photo taken) - One small container of sauce in the refrigerator with no lid, date, or name on it. (Photo obtained) - Pepsi bottle in the refrigerator with no date or name. - A sub in the refrigerator with no name or date on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to BENJAMIN LANDA — 48 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORANGE PARK REHABILITATION AND NURSING MEMBER LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/07/2022 |
| APJA OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| FLNHO CAPITAL GROUP LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| GPJA OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| JACKSONVILLE 4 MEMBER OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| JACKSONVILLE 4 OPCO PARTNERS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| JFLNHO CAPITAL GROUP, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| MKJA OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| RPJA OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| SLJA OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| ZBL-18 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| LANDA, JUDY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| LOWY, SHLOMO | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| PLATSCHEK, ALEXANDER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/07/2022 |
| FORDHAM, LORI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 10/07/2022 |
| BRECHER, HAL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/07/2022 |
11 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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 105381. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-15, 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.