Hunters Creek Nursing And Rehab Center
14155 Town Loop Blvd, Orlando, FL 32837 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 116 certified beds · (407) 541-2600 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (36% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2024
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $67,191 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-14)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 — 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 2 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 | 3.2% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.0% | 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 | 0.3% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.9% | 4.6% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 2.2% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.7% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 3.6% | 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 | 9.2% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.2% | 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 | 10.0% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.0% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.2% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.50 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.86 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
56.7% 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 228 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 76.8% 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 112 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 17% 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 | 56.7%CMS range 49.2–62.7 | 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 | 10.5%CMS range 7.5–12.4 | 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 | 76.8% | 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 | 74.1% | 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 | 68.8% | 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 | 99.5% | 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 | 96.6% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 6.6% | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 6.7–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 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 116 beds and averages 109.2 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 7 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 4.03 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.42 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.21 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.56 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is below the national median of 45%. 2 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-09-20 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect by not ensuring staff implemented measures to mitigate the risk and prevent elopement for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for elopement, of a total sample of 13 residents, (#1). These failures contributed to the elopement of resident #1 and placed him at risk for serious injury, harm, and/or death. While resident #1 was out of the facility unsupervised, there was likelihood he could have died, been accosted by unknown persons, become lost, or hit by a vehicle. On 9/04/24, resident #1, a [AGE] year-old male was admitted to the facility from the hospital. While he was at the hospital, doctors determined he was at risk of harm and falls without 24-hour supervision and care and services to monitor him and implement measures to ensure freedom from harm and prevent known risks of endangerment. On 9/09/24 at 6:28 PM, the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services to prevent a physically and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-09-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and a secure environment to prevent elopement for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for elopement, of a total sample of 13 residents, (#1). These failures contributed to the elopement of resident #1 and placed him at risk for serious life-threatening injury or even death. While resident #1 was out of the facility unsupervised, there was high likelihood he could have sustained serious life-threatening injuries, become lost, been accosted by a stranger, or hit by a motor vehicle and died. On 9/09/24 at 6:28 PM, resident #1 exited the facility's front entrance when the receptionist unlocked the door for him to leave the facility. He walked approximately 0.2 miles across a highly trafficked 4-lane road with a curbed median and into an apartment complex. The route along the way was noted to have wet, uneven terrain/pavement and curbs. The facility was unaware of the resident's elopement until a Certified Nursing Assistant…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-11-14 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to adequately evaluate skin integrity and promptly intervene to prevent the development and worsening of a pressure injury for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure injuries, of a total sample of 9 residents, (#1). The facility's failure to identify early stages of skin breakdown, promptly initiate wound care and treatment, and develop nursing interventions to promote wound healing resulted in actual physical and psychosocial harm for resident #1. The resident's skin was intact on admission to the facility and within 12 days, she was diagnosed with a stage 4, full-thickness skin loss pressure injury. Two days later, resident #1 was transferred to the hospital for signs of a possible wound infection. She required a surgical wound debridement procedure and was discharged home from the hospital with a wound vacuum machine. Resident #1 became homebound, experienced…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-22 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately obtain and document fluid intake for a resident on a fluid restriction for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hydration status, out of a total sample of 11 residents, (#2).Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, stage 4, and heart failure. Review of resident #2's medical record revealed a care plan for nutrition and hydration initiated on 7/23/22 and revised on 4/21/26. The care plan showed resident #2 was at risk for decreased nutritional status and dehydration related to diabetes, chronic kidney disease, edema, hyponatremia (low sodium) and hypoosmolality ( low levels of electrolytes and other fluids in the blood). The goals included remaining free from signs and symptoms of dehydration. The interventions indicated resident #2 was on a fluid restriction of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-12-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food products were stored correctly in the walk-in cooler, and failed to ensure the temperature of hot foods being held was taken before service in accordance with professional food service safety. Findings: 1. On 12/15/24 at 11:50 AM, during a tour of the walk-in refrigerator with [NAME] D, a small plastic bag holding approximately 12 turkey slices, dated 12/11 (five days ago) was noted. [NAME] D stated the facility policy was to discard perishable food items three days after they were opened, and she removed it to be discarded. Another plastic bag with approximately 20 slices of sliced ham, dated 12/10 (six days ago) was noted and [NAME] D stated it also should have been discarded after three days and she removed it. An opened and resealed plastic bag of shredded mozzarella cheese dated 12/08 (eight days ago) and an opened bag of goat cheese, resealed in a plastic bag was dated 11/21 (25 days ago) was noted and [NAME] D reiterated these also should have been discarded after three days and she threw…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-12-18 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity for 4 of 15 dependent diners at the facility, out of a total sample of 32 residents, (#11 and #48). 1. Review of resident #11's medical record revealed she was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis) and hemiparesis (one-sided weakness) following a stroke affecting her right dominant side, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and aphasia (language disorder). Review of resident #11's Minimum Data Set quarterly assessment with Assessment Reference Date of 11/05/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status was not obtained because she was rarely or never understood. The assessment showed resident #11 was dependent on staff for eating and received a mechanically altered diet. On 12/17/24 at 12:18 PM, resident #11 was lying in bed with her lunch tray on her bedside table. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) E was assisting resident's #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 · D2024-12-18 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 address a pharmacy recommendation for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, out of a total sample of 32 residents, (#75). Findings: Review of resident #75's medical record revealed he was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease, congestive heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of resident #75's Minimum Data Set quarterly assessment with Assessment Reference Date of 11/05/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. The assessment showed resident #75 received a scheduled pain medication regimen. He experienced pain occasionally and the intensity was rated 8 on a scale of 0 to 10. Review of the physician orders included an order for Lidocaine External Patch 4% dated 4/28/23. The Lidocaine Patch was to be applied to the right leg topically two times a day for pain. Review of 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 · D2024-12-18 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff had the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of food and nutrition service to prevent potential food borne illness for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for food, of a total sample of 32 residents, (#1). Findings: On 12/16/24 at 11:47 AM, resident #1 stated she had diabetes and liked a snack before bed for good blood sugar control. She continued, she often requested a sandwich snack from the nursing staff but had frequently been told there wasn't a sandwich available so now she received an egg or tuna salad sandwich on her dinner tray each night. Resident #1 explained although she received the sandwich on her dinner tray she did not eat it right away but instead usually ate it anywhere from 10:30 PM to 12:30 AM. She added, often the only snacks available were graham crackers which didn't have the necessary protein content for good blood sugar control. She stated her dinner meal usually arrived before 6:00 PM and she tried to wait at least four hours before she ate her nighttime snack.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-14 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected a skin condition related to an acquired pressure injury for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure injuries, of a total sample of 9 residents, (#1). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #1, an [AGE] year-old female, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for short-term rehabilitation. Her diagnoses included gastrointestinal hemorrhage, posthemorrhagic anemia, and generalized muscle weakness. The Medical Certification for Medicaid Long-Term Care Services and Patient Transfer Form dated 6/27/24 indicated resident #1 was at risk for developing pressure injuries, and on discharge from the hospital, she had no pressure injuries, skin lesions, or wounds. Review of the admission Data Set, dated 6/27/24, revealed resident #1's skin color was normal and her skin integrity was clear, with no conditions present. The linked admission Note, dated 6/27/24, revealed a body assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-14 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement, and update an appropriate baseline care plan to mitigate risk factors for skin impairment, and failed to incorporate person-centered interventions to promote healing for an acquired pressure injury for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure injuries, of a total sample of 9 residents, (#1). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #1, an [AGE] year-old female, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for short-term rehabilitation. Her diagnoses included gastrointestinal hemorrhage, posthemorrhagic anemia, and generalized muscle weakness. Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital for evaluation of a wound on 7/11/24. The Medical Certification for Medicaid Long-Term Care Services and Patient Transfer Form dated 6/27/24 indicated resident #1 was hospitalized for a gastrointestinal bleed and anemia. The document revealed she was alert, oriented, and followed instructions, and was at risk for pressure ulcers. The form…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-18 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Dialysis received timely care and services to mitigate the risk for development of serious complications, from a total sample of 5 residents, (#3). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #3, a [AGE] year old male was admitted to the facility from an acute care hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end stage renal (kidney) disease, dependence on renal dialysis, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, severe cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, chronic pulmonary edema, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. On 12/08/23, four days after admission, the resident required re-hospitalization, and was readmitted back to the facility on [DATE] with additional diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (biochemical brain dysfunction), and hyperkalemia (high Potassium). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) 5-day/Discharge Return Not Anticipated Assessment with Assessment Reference 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-29 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to implement physician's orders for laboratory testing for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for medication regimen review from a total sample of 38 residents, (#87). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #87 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with diagnoses of thrombocytopenia (low platelets), anemia, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. The Minimum Data Set modified admission assessment with Assessment Reference Date 6/01/2023 noted the resident was rarely or never understood, assessed as severely cognitively impaired, and had not had any rejections of evaluation or care. The assessment showed the resident received insulin injections for 6 days, opioid medication for 5 days, antianxiety medication for 6 days, and antidepressant, anticoagulant, and diuretic medication for 7 out of 7 days during the look back period. The Comprehensive Care Plan noted focus items for high-risk medications that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices to prevent contamination during wound care for 1 of 3 residents observed for wound care out of a total sample of 38 residents, (#1). Findings: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease, sepsis, urinary tract infection, bacterial disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, peripheral vascular disease, non-pressure wound left lower lateral back and pressure wounds sacrum and right lower lateral back. Review of resident #1's medical record revealed a care plan for actual skin breakdown revised on 6/19/23. The care plan indicated the resident had non pressure wound on left lateral lower back and pressure wounds right lower lateral back and sacrum. The care goal read, Resident will show signs of healing and remain free from complications .Wounds will be free from infection . Interventions included a wound care specialist for…
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 · D2021-11-17 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure medications were administered according to physician orders for 1 of 6 sampled residents, of a total sample of 49 residents, (#70). Findings: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, and depression. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 10/23/21 that read, Lorazepam tablet 0.5 mg [milligram], give one tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed (PRN) for agitation related to anxiety for 14 days. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected the above order with a start date of 10/23/21 and a stop date of 11/03/21. The MAR had an X in all boxes for all dates after 11/03/21, to indicate that Lorazepam 0.5 mg should not be administered. Review of resident 70's Controlled Medication Utilization Record for Lorazepam 0.5 mg revealed nurses signed for removal of the medication on 5 occasions after the stop date of 11/03/21. Nurses documented…
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.
- 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
$67,191 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $51,545 — penalty dated 2024-11-14
- $7,823 — penalty dated 2024-09-20
- $7,823 — penalty dated 2024-09-20
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 SOVEREIGN HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS — 43 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 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRONQUIST 2015 FAMILY TR | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/31/2015 |
| MANGINE, JOHN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/25/2012 |
| BERKADIA COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 07/14/2014 |
| FL HUNTERS CREEK HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/19/2009 |
| HEALTH SERVICES PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/29/2025 |
| CHERY, DAWN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/08/2017 |
| GERRITY, HENRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2014 |
| KAAR, SUSAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2003 |
| CRONQUIST, ROYCE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2018 |
| KELLY, MICHELLE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2018 |
| MELTON, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/15/2009 |
| SOUTHERN HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/23/2025 |
| SOVEREIGN HEALTHCARE DISBURSEMENTS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/29/2025 |
| BRITTON, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
| JICHA, JOSEPH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/14/2025 |
| NOTERMANN, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/15/2023 |
| NOTERMANN, BRENDA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/23/2025 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 33 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
7 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 $825K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 105987. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-18, 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.