No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Glades Health Care Center

230 South Barfield Highway, Pahokee, FL 33476 · Non profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (561) 924-5561 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (561) 924-5561 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 10 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • 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)
Worth asking about
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
170 S Barfield Hwy Ste 101 · (561) 924-6100 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
109 S Lake Ave · (561) 924-7701 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Thriftway0.4 mi
181 Rardin Ave · (561) 924-0094 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased11.8%8.7%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.4%5.5%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.4%0.3%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.4%0.7%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%4.6%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.3%2.5%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened7.9%9.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication30.2%14.4%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%99.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.9%4.5%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control6.1%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 table35.1%8.6%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission39.6%26.1%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.6%9.1%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.582.131.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.641.151.80typical

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

11.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.18U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.11hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 17% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 45% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.2%CMS range 7.4–16.010.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified80.8%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.9%CMS range 3.8–13.17.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.261.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.75
RN hours/ resident / day
0.70
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.41
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.86
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.55
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 57.8 residents a day — about 48% occupied, or roughly 62 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.86 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.75 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.41 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 3.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.94 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.83 to 0.55 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

1 administrator has left in the past year.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

7
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-12-05)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2023-09-21)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · E2024-12-05 · tag F0801 — pattern
    Employ 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that clinical nutritional assessments were completed within the scope of practice for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for nutrition (Resident #30). This had the potential to affect 51 out of 60 residents on the facility's current census. The findings included: A review of the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) scope of practice dated 01/20/20 showed the following: Gather Nutrition Data. Interview and identify client-specific nutritional needs/problems. Review nutrition screening data and calculate nutrient intake. Document in the medical record. Identify food customs and nutrition preferences based on race, culture, religion, and food intolerances. Utilize standard nutrition care procedures following ethical and confidentiality principles and practices. Participate in care conferences and review the effectiveness of nutrition care. Provide nutrition education. A Review of the Revised 2024 Scope and Standards of Practice for the Registered…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-12-05 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, menu review, and interview, the facility failed to follow their approved menu for 1 of 2 meals observed, as evidenced by the failure to prepare all foods on the lunch menu on 12/04/24, and substituted with foods not on the menu, affecting sampled Residents #13 and #2, with the potential of affecting 4 of 56 residents who consume food. The findings included: Review of the approved lunch menu for 12/04/24 documented, in part, the provision of an alternate vegetable of corn on the cob, the mechanical soft vegetable of cooked carrots, and the alternate mechanical soft vegetable of lima beans. An observation of the posted lunch meal for 12/04/24 docmented the meat as BBQ ribs with a side of baked beans. The alternate meal was listed as fried fish with corn on the cob. During an observation of the lunch meal service on 12/04/24 beginning at 11:20 AM, Staff G, lead cook for the day, placed the prepared food on the steam table, to include in part, chicken thighs, green beans, pureed chicken, and pureed green beans. After completion of the the food temperatures at 11:35…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-12-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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 the facility policy, centers for disease control (CDC) review, observations and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices by failure to implement enhanced barrier precaution (EBP) process for residents with wounds, and indwelling medical devices including feeding tubes, and foley catheter for 4 of 4 sampled residents, with the potential to affect 6 residents identified as needing EBP. This involved Resident #1, #20, #22, and #44. The facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene during wound care. This involved (Resident #22). The facility failure to ensure appropriate hand hygiene during perineal/catheter care. This involved Resident #44. The findings included: The Policy reviewed, titled handwashing practices dated March 19, 2020, indicated handwashing shall be regarded by this organization as the single most important means of preventing the spread of infections. 1) all personnel shall follow our establishing procedures to prevent the spread 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-05 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure of accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #33, #15, and #8), specifically a resident with hearing loss, this involved Resident #33; a resident with limited range of motion, this involved Resident #15; and a resident for medication usage, this involved Resident #8. The findings included: 1) Clinical record review revealed that Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included: Dementia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, reference date 10/08/24, indicated Resident #15 was rarely/never understood. No moods or behaviors were recorded in this MDS. Under section GG for functional abilities and goal. It was documented Resident #15 had no impairment in his upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand). Review of Therapy evaluation/summary dated 04/10/24 revealed Resident #15's proper hand function and skin integrity were impacted by the need for a right…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 develop a care plan for 2 of 17 sampled residents (Resident #58 related to an actual fall and Resident #17 for use of bed rails). The findings included: 1) Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Falls, General weakness, Hypertension, and Rhabdomylosis (a breakdown of skeletal muscle). Record review revealed Resident #58 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 on the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]. This indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Further record review revealed on 10/05/24, the resident sustained a fall when he was walking to the bathroom, felt dizzy and fell on his side. A review of the resident's care plans revealed a care plan with a start date of 01/09/24 for potential for significant injury related to fall (edited 10/07/24). Approaches included: redirect prn (as needed) (created on 10/07/24) and keep call light and personal items within…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-05 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure complete and proper personal care for 1 of 1 sampled resident who had an urinary drainage device, as evidenced by the failure to perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves, failed to provide peri-care (personal care) during catheter care, and failed to ensure proper catheter care for Resident #1. The findings included: Review of the policy titled, Foley Catheter Care and Maintenance revised 05/19/22, documented in part, Procedures: Foley (urinary drainage device) Catheter Maintenance . 4. Wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, then apply gloves. 5. Using mild soap and water, or approved cleaner, clean your genital area. 8. Clean your urethra (urinary opening), which is where the catheter enters your body. 9. Clean the catheter from where it enters your body and then down, away from your body. Review of the record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The record revealed…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    Procure 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 recipe review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to follow cooking instructions and ensure prepared fried fish was at a safe temperature, for 1 of 1 sampled resident who ordered that meal (Resident #13). The findings included: Review of the Production Recipe for the breaded cod, the fried fish on the lunch menu for 12/04/24, documented in part, Crunchy Breaded Cod Fillet 1. Deep fry from frozen at 360 degrees F for 3 to 5 minutes. Final internal cooking temperature must reach a minimum of 145 degrees F, held for a minimum of 15 seconds. Hot foods held for later service must maintain a minimum internal temperature of 135 degrees F. An observation of the lunch meal service was made on 12/04/24 beginning at 11:20 AM. Staff G, lead cook for the day, placed the prepared foods into the steam table and took the food temperatures. When asked about fried fish, the cook stated it would be fried a little later, as the resident who requested it was served on the last cart. At about 12:00 PM, Staff H, assistant cook for the day, fried three pieces of fish and placed them…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-21 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on policy review, interview, and record review, the facility failed to act upon a grievance voiced by a resident regarding care for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #266). The findings included: Policy titled complaints/grievances of resident/family member. Revised date January 2018. Department approval: Director of social services. The objective included: to ensure that all residents have complaints addressed to their satisfaction; to provide a mechanism for residents to access a grievance process. The procedure included: Complaints received by social services or staff member: 1.the staff member brings the complaint to their department manager immediately. 2.the social service director or department manager arranges a meeting with the involved discipline and the resident and/or family member where attempts shall be made to resolve the issues. 3.a resident/family complaint/grievance resolution form is completed and forwarded to the director of social services who will present the data at the quality assurance/performance improvement committee meeting. Record review revealed…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-05-12 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain in-dwelling urinary catheters according to facility policy for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#44 and #54). The findings included: Facility policy titled: Foley Catheter Care and Maintenance effective date 01/01/2020 reads, 1. Keep the drainage bag below the level of your bladder and off the floor at all times. 2. Keep the catheter secured to your thigh to prevent it from moving. 1). Record review revealed Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that include Cerebral Vascular Accident (stroke) and Dementia. The quarterly assessment on 04/09/2022 documented the resident as being severely cognitively impaired and having a functional status of total dependence on staff performance for all activities of daily living and care. A Physicians order dated 03/22/2022 documented,, Foley catheter care every shift per facility protocol Care Plan dated 01/26/2022 documented, Catheter care per facility…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2023-09-21 · tag F0847 — widespread
    Inform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer residents Binding Arbitration Agreements in a manner that the residents or their representatives would be able to make an informed decision. The findings included: During the entrance conference, on 09/18/23 at 9:11 AM, when the Administrator was asked if the facility offered Binding Arbitration Agreement to residents as a means for dispute resolution, the Administrator stated that the facility did. The Administrator stated that the facility had not had any disputes resolved using the Binding Arbitration Agreement. Record review revealed the admission Packet documented, Optional Arbitration Clause: if the parties of this Agreement do not wish to include the following arbitration provision, please indicate so by marking an X through this clause. Both parties shall also initial that X to dignify their agreement to refuse arbitration. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be settled in arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Arbitration…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
HURT, EDWARDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2015
COUNCIL ON AGING OF FLORIDA INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/26/2025
OKEECHOBEE COUNCIL ON AGING INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 11/18/1999

CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 3 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.

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$7.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-11.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$480K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 85%Medicare 12%Other / private 3%

About 85% 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 $480K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$395per resident / day
operating cost
$12,014per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$355per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in FL

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Florida
$10,342/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$12,167/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,610/mo
Assisted living

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 106018. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-05, 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.

What to do next