Bay Pointe Nursing Pavilion
4201 31st St S, Saint Petersburg, FL 33712 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (727) 867-1104 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 3.3% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.5% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.0% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.6% | 4.6% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 0.0% | 9.5% | 16.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.7% | 14.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.9% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.6% | 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 | 12.0% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.8% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.5% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.6% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.77 | 2.13 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.29 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
46.8% 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 41 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 76.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 77 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 0.55 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 33% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 46.8%CMS range 34.1–62.0 | 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 | 13.4%CMS range 8.8–18.4 | 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 | 76.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 71.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 61.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 3.2–11.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.29 | 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 120 beds and averages 105.5 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.30 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.05 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 3.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.38 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-08 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to ensure shift to shift controlled substance logs were complete and accurate for five hall logs (100, 300, 400, 500, and 600) out of six controlled substance logs reviewed. Findings included: On 4/8/26 at 9:12 a.m. during an observation, interview and narcotic count verification of the 400 Hall even cart with Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), the controlled substance key exchange audit (CSKEA)form used to document controlled medications and medication cart key exchange was noted blank. There were no signatures by the off going or oncoming nurse. Staff A, LPN said controlled medications were counted at the beginning of the shift and stated she did not sign the form. Staff A, LPN was also assigned to the 300 Hall cart, and the CSKEA form was not signed. Staff A, LPN was observed signing the oncoming nurse column. On 4/8/26 at 9:51 a.m. during an observation, interview and narcotic count verification of the 400 Hall odd and 500 Hall carts with Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN). Staff B, RN had signed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled in accordance with professional standards. Observations included refrigerated medications stored outside of required temperature controls, medications lacking open dates, and failure to properly dispose of single-dose vials after use in one med cart (600) of six medication carts sampled.Findings Included: On 4/8/26 at 9:57 a.m. during interview, observation and narcotic count verification of the 600 Hall cart with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). An opened undated vial of Ativan 20mg/10ml (milligram/milliliter) was in the controlled medication drawer. The clear plastic bag containing the vial was affixed with a sticker containing but not limited to, resident's name, medication issue date 9/24/25, medication strength and instructions to keep in the refrigerator. The label on the vial did not have an open or expiration date written on the label and the vial did not contain markings to check the volume of the medication. Staff C, LPN said she knows there is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-12 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 review of facility records, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet the needs of the residents as evidenced by, 1. Resident interviews on untimely call light response for five residents (#11, #14, #15, #10 and #16) of 8 residents sampled, 2. Unresolved grievances related to call light response times for one resident (#11) of five residents reviewed for grievances. Findings included: On 3/10/25 at 2:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #11 who stated, depending on who's working the call light response varies. Resident #11 said, There is definitely a problem on nights and weekends where it can be up to an hour before someone answers the call light. A review of Resident #11's admission record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, muscle wasting, and atrophy. Review of Resident #11's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental…
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 · D2024-04-02 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Hemodialysis (HD) care was provided per physician orders for one (Residents #1) of six residents receiving dialysis. Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 03/09/24 with diagnoses to include End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) and Dependence on renal dialysis. Review of the facility's grievance log showed on 03/11/24, a grievance was filed for Resident #1. Review of the grievance submitted by the resident's family member showed Resident missed dialysis on 03/09/24 and was late on 03/07/24 due to transportation. Review of physician orders for Resident #1 dated 03/06/24 showed the resident did not have orders for hemodialysis. Review of physician orders for Resident #1 dated 04/02/24 showed the resident is to have Dialysis on days: Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday at [name and location of Dialysis center] Chair time: 6 AM Catheter site: Right and Left Upper Arms Dialysis Transport:[name of transportation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-12 · 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 interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure one resident (#81) out of five residents sampled was accurately assessed for pain in Section J- Health Conditions on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Findings included: During an interview on 01/09/24 at 9:45 a.m., Resident #81 stated she had pain in her feet. Resident #81 could not answer why her feet hurt but stated, They just hurt. Review of Resident #81's admission Record showed diagnoses including muscle wasting and atrophy, multiple sites, chronic pain syndrome, low back pain, foot drop, and pain unspecified. Review of Resident #81's current physician orders showed the following medications for pain: - A physician order dated 10/09/23 showed Baclofen Oral Tablet 10 MG [milligrams] give one tablet by mouth three times a day for pain. - A physician order dated 10/10/23 showed Norco Oral Tablet 5-356 MG [milligrams] give one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for pain. - A physician order dated 11/10/23 showed Lidocaine HCI…
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 · D2024-01-12 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to refer one resident (#78) of 12 residents reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), for a Level II review after a positive Level I PASRR revealed a need for further review. Findings included: Review of Resident #78's admission Record showed an original admission date of 07/28/23 with diagnoses included but not limited to unspecified mood [Affective] disorder onset date 07/28/23, other psychotic disorder onset date 07/28/23, Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type onset 12/14/23, Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate onset date 12/14/23, Schizoaffective Disorder, unspecified onset date 07/28/23, Bipolar Disorder, unspecified onset date 07/28/23 and generalized anxiety disorder onset date 10/19/23. Review of Resident #78's Discharge Return Anticipated Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed under Section C-Cognitive Patterns, Resident #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 03 (severe cognitive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-12 · 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement and develop a care plan for a Functional Maintenance program/Restorative Nursing program for one resident (#17) out 34 sampled residents. Findings included: Review of Resident #17's admission Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. Her diagnoses included lack of coordination, repeated falls, unsteadiness on feet, need for assistance with personal care, cognitive communication deficit, acquired deformities of right foot, age related physical debility, personal history (healed) of traumatic fracture, and presence right artificial hip joint. An interview was conducted on 1/9/24 at 10:22 AM with Resident #17. She was observed to be in her room sitting in her wheelchair. She said she was not currently in therapy, but she feels she was making progress in therapy and now that she is no longer in therapy she feels she is not able to lift herself from the wheelchair and use her walker as well as she…
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 · D2024-01-12 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to provide a Functional Maintenance program/Restorative Nursing program to maintain or improve resident activities of daily living (ADLs) for one resident (#17) out three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Findings included: Review of Resident #17's admission Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. Her diagnoses included but are not limited to lack of coordination, repeated falls, unsteadiness on feet, need for assistance with personal care, cognitive communication deficit, acquired deformities of right foot, age related physical debility, personal history (healed) of traumatic fracture, and presence right artificial hip joint. An interview was conducted on 1/9/24 at 10:22 AM with Resident #17. She was observed to be in her room sitting in her wheelchair. She said she was not currently in therapy, but she feels she was making progress in therapy and now that she is no longer in therapy she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain emergency supplies for tracheostomy care at bedside per physician's order and failed to obtain orders prior to administering oxygen for one resident (Resident #14) out of two sampled residents. Findings included: On 01/10/24 at 9:30 a.m., the oxygen concentrator in Resident #14's room was observed on and set at 5 liters. On 01/12/24 at 9:40 a.m., the oxygen concentrator in Resident #14's room was observed on and set at 5 liters, the humidified air was set at 28%. The opposite end of the tubing connector attached to the oxygen concentrator was observed disconnected from the tracheostomy (trach) collar and on the floor. A review of the admission Record for Resident #14 showed the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, tracheostomy status, and respiratory disorders in diseases classified elsewhere. A review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-10-14 · 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 observations, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete the two most current Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments, and the two most current Nursing Quarterly assessments for one (Resident #48) of thirty-six sampled residents. Findings included: During observations on 10/11/2021 at 1:00 p.m., 10/12/2021 at 12:50 p.m., and 10/13/2021 at 12:45 p.m. and 2:10 p.m., Resident #48 was seated either in her room, the main dining room, or out in the smoking courtyard. During these observed times, Resident #48 was seated, slightly reclined, in a padded [Brand name] chair. Further observations revealed thigh straps that were attached to the chair and both of her legs. These straps were observed preventing her from rising up from the chair. Resident #48 was not able to self release these straps, and therefore they were identified as a trunk restraint. Resident #48 did not present with any behaviors, pain, or discomfort related to the trunk restraint. An interview with the [NAME]…
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 · E2019-11-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 strawberries were stored and maintained in a safe and sanitary manner, and failed to appropriately store kitchen staff's drinks in two (2) of three (3) refrigerators sampled. Findings included During the initial kitchen tour on 11/24/19 at 9:45 a.m., an observation of the walk-in refrigerator included on the second shelf, a cardboard box that contained two (2) boxes of moldy strawberries. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) Staff A, Kitchen Cook, confirmed the presence of both boxes of moldy strawberries, and quickly removed them throwing them into a nearby garbage receptacle. On 11/24/19 at 9:45 a.m. during an observation of the cook's refrigerator a white plastic bag with two (2) large cans of Mountain Dew soda drink was seen on the first shelf of the refrigerator. Staff A stated, That is mine, I forgot to date it. Staff A later revealed that storage of facility food items for resident meals such as butter, eggs and cheese are kept in the cook's refrigerator. An interview was conducted with the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-11-27 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement two (#90's and #151) residents' care plans for nebulizer treatment, nebulizer equipment cleaning and tracheostomy care of 33 resident sampled. Findings Included: 1. Review of Resident #90's care plan reflected a focus area of oxygen therapy related to respiratory illness and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease initiated 12/26/19, revised on 6/20/19. Interventions included special equipment oxygen initiated 12/26/18. Give medications as ordered by physician. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness initiated 12/26/18 revised on 3/20/19. Administer oxygen as ordered initiated on 12/26/18 revised on 3/20/19. During an interview on 11/25/19 at 11:20 a.m. with staff member C, LPN she confirmed she gave Resident #90 her breathing treatment and turned off the machine before she left the room. Staff member C, LPN confirmed she removed the mask from the resident and did not clean the nebulizer before putting the mask back in the bag. Staff member C, stated she listened to the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-11-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two (#90 and #151) of three sampled residents, received respiratory care and services related to nebulizer treatments and cleaning for Resident #90 and tracheostomy care including humidified oxygen for Resident #151. Findings Included: 1. During an interview on 11/25/19 at 10:20 a.m. with Resident #90, she confirmed she will give herself breathing treatments and confirmed the nurses do not listen to her lungs or check her oxygen level with each treatment. Resident #90 stated she has been send to the hospital several times for low oxygen levels. Resident #90 stated she was getting this treatment due to getting winded when she transfers from her bed to her wheel chair. During an interview on 11/25/19 at 11:20 a.m. with staff member C, LPN she confirmed she gave Resident #90 her breathing treatment and turned off the machine before she left the room. Staff member C, LPN confirmed she removed the mask from the resident and did not clean…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR LONG-TERM CARE — 17 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 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 1.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
The other 16 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR LONG TERM CARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 12/23/2002 |
| JAFFE, HOWARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2003 |
| KATZ-HALL, KATHY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2003 |
| MULLARKEY, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2003 |
| RICHMOND, PENNY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2003 |
| AEGIR HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| CONSULTING SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| FACILITY SUPPORT COMPANY, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| KANE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| CROCKETT WILSON, NEKEISHA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/18/2025 |
| MOYER, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/17/2023 |
| SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/19/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 80% 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 $159K 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 105477. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-01-12, 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.