Concordia Manor
321 13th Ave N, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 39 certified beds · (727) 822-3030 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS lists it as a Special Focus candidate — not on the watch list itself, but among the homes CMS is watching because of its recent inspection history
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $97,747 in federal fines (most recent 2025-09-10)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (73%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- 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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 4 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 4.1% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.2% | 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 | 0.9% | 0.7% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.9% | 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 | 1.7% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.3% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.4% | 14.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.2% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 2.7% | 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 | 17.1% | 8.6% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.9% | 26.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.2% | 9.1% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.34 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.60 | 1.15 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
44.8% 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 33 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 75% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 44.8%CMS range 31.2–58.0 | 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 | 12.7%CMS range 7.6–18.2 | 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 | not 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 discharge | not 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 discharge | not 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 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 | not 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 discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 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 | 6.6%CMS range 2.5–14.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 39 beds and averages 34.0 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.90 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.43 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 3.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.02 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.05 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 73% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from neglect related to ensuring safety during bed mobility consistent with the assessed and care planned needs for three residents (#2, #5, and #6) of three residents sampled for abuse and neglect.Resident #2 sustained a fall from the bed during care, resulting in a transfer to a higher level of care due to acute pain and was diagnosed with a hip fracture. Resident #2, a vulnerable resident, was not promptly assessed post fall, and the resident's acute pain was not addressed in a timely manner. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was seen by a physician and that an ordered X-ray was completed. Resident #2, who was contracted and had other comorbidities, was not a candidate for surgical intervention resulting in on-going physical and psychosocial pain.This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury or death to Residents #2 and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-09-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide the number of staff needed to ensure safety during bed mobility consistent with the assessed and care planned needs for four residents (#2, #3, #5 and #6) of five residents sampled for falls.Resident #2 sustained a fall from the bed during care, resulting in a transfer to a higher level of care due to acute pain and was diagnosed with a hip fracture. Resident #2, a vulnerable resident, was not promptly assessed post fall, and the resident's acute pain was not addressed in a timely manner. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was seen by a physician and that an ordered X-ray was completed. Resident #2, who was contracted and had other comorbidities, was not a candidate for surgical intervention resulting in on-going physical and psychosocial pain.This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury or death to Residents #2 and resulted in the determination of Immediate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-09-10 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — patternProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure pain control and management for residents' post fall for two residents (#2 and #5) of three residents reviewed. Resident #2 sustained a femur fracture which she was not a surgical candidate for. Resident #2 continued to have uncontrolled pain which continued to affect her activities of daily living. The facility failed to accurately assess and notify the physician of Resident #2's uncontrolled pain. Resulting in on-going physical pain and psychosocial harm.Resident #2 sustained a fall from the bed during care, resulting in a transfer to a higher level of care due to acute pain and was diagnosed with a hip fracture. Resident #2, a vulnerable resident, was not promptly assessed post fall, and the resident's acute pain was not addressed in a timely manner. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was seen by a physician and that an ordered X-ray was completed. Resident #2, who was contracted and had other comorbidities, was not a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-04-23 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility neglected to provide the number of staff needed to ensure safety during bed mobility consistent with the assessed and care planned needs for one (#1) of two residents sampled for abuse and neglect. Resident #1 sustained a fall from the bed resulting in a transfer to a higher level of care, and head injury. Findings included: On [DATE] at 11:29 a.m., Resident #1 was observed laying in bed. The resident's right arm was resting on his chest and was contracted. Resident #1 was non-verbal but nodded yes or no to questions. He nodded yes to remembering a fall incident. He nodded yes to being in pain. He shrugged his shoulders when asked if he was injured. Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was present during Resident #1's observation and interview. Staff B, LPN reported she was assigned to Resident #1, and the resident suffered a bump during a fall. Staff B, LPN reached over the resident's face and touched the right side of the resident's forehead…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to honor a resident's shower preferences for one resident (#4) of one sampled.Findings included: On 8/24/2025 at 10:00 a.m., an observation of Residents #4 revealed she was sitting in her bed. She expressed concerns related to her showers. Resident #4 stated she's been telling staff that she needs to have regular shower so she could feel like a normal person. Resident #4 said she gets bed baths, and they can't shower her. The resident did not know why the staff could not shower her.Review of Resident #4's progress note dated 8/15/2025 at 6:07 a.m. revealed .resident also stated she wants a shower due to not being offered one. states[sic] isn't she supposed to have a shower weekly. resident[sic] education on tuesday[sic] and friday[sic] schedule.A review of Residents #4 Admissions Record revealed an admission date of 5/23/2025 with diagnoses to include: multiple sclerosis, morbid (severe) obesity, type 2 diabetes, muscle wasting and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-23 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 report allegations of abuse in a timely manner for two (#1 and #3) of two residents sampled for abuse and neglect. (Cross reference F600 and F610) Findings included: 1. Review of a hospital visit summary for Resident #1 dated 03/23/25 at 3:22 a.m. showed Resident #1 was seen due to a fall with diagnoses of fall, initial encounter, resulting in a head injury. Review of the admission Record for Resident #1 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include muscle wasting and atrophy, cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion, weakness, sepsis, muscle wasting, nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage unspecified, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, aphasia and unspecified Dementia. An interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 04/23/25 at 1:26 p.m. revealed she did not initiate the investigation for the incident on 03/22/25 until 03/27/25. She stated she could not answer to why staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-23 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 investigate thoroughly and timely allegations of abuse for two (#1 and #3) of two residents sampled for abuse and neglect. (Cross reference F600 and F609) Findings included: 1. Review of a hospital visit summary for Resident #1 dated 03/23/25 at 3:22 a.m. showed Resident #1 was seen due to a fall with diagnoses of fall, initial encounter, resulting in a head injury. Review of the admission Record for Resident #1 revealed he was originally admitted to the facility in 2013 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include muscle wasting and atrophy, cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion, weakness, sepsis, muscle wasting, nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage unspecified, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, aphasia and unspecified dementia. On 04/23/25 at 11:42 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assigned to Resident #1 the day the resident fell on [DATE]. She stated she had worked 3 p.m. - 11 p.m. and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-23 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with professional standards and policy for weekly skin evaluations and assessments for one (#1) of two residents sampled. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Wound Prevention and Treatment Overview, effective October 2021 showed - The facility strives to ensure that a Resident/Patient entering the facility without ulcers does not develop them unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates they were unavoidable. The facility implements the following interventions to prevent the development of pressure ulcers: - Identify Residents/Patients at risk & the specific factors placing them at risk then implement an individualized Plan of Care based on the identified factors. - Reduce occurrence of pressure over bony prominences to minimize injury. - Protect against the adverse effects of external mechanical forces (pressure, friction, shear). - Increase the awareness of ulcer prevention through…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · tag F0675 — failed to support quality of life — isolatedHonor each resident's preferences, choices, values and beliefs.
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 timely incontinence care and services were provided to promote Quality of Life for one (#2) of five sampled residents. Findings included: During a facility tour on 03/07/2025 at 9:29 a.m., Resident #2 was observed continuously calling for help. The resident continued calling for toileting from 9:29 a.m. to 9:58 a.m. and was observed to have waited approximately 30 minutes for bowel and incontinence care. On 03/07/2025 at 9:29 a.m., Resident #2 was heard calling out from her room, stating, Help me, Help. The resident's verbalization could be heard from the middle of the [NAME] hall. During the observation and interview of the resident in her room, Resident #2 was observed on a specialized mattress, and the covers pulled up to her shoulder. Resident #2 stated she needed help, she had messed herself. Resident #2 was heard to continue her cries for help and waiting to be assisted. On 03/07/2025 at 9:30 a.m., Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was observed at the nursing station. When asked which aide…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-07 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely repairs were completed for one of three air conditioning units and failed to ensure resident rooms were maintained in a safe and sanitary manner in two resident rooms (104 and 105) related to cracking, peeling, and dislodged ceiling material with discoloration. Findings included: An interview was conducted on 03/07/2025 at 10:52 a.m. with the Director of Maintenance (DOM). He stated one of the air conditioning (a/c) unit's main board were not working. He said there were three units on top of the building. The DOM said, the one that is not working has not been functioning for about one month, but we have a portable that has been in use. He stated the malfunction was determined on 01/28/2025. He stated he had obtained quotes which were submitted to corporate office. He said, At this time, we do not have approval for the work to be done. Review of an undated facility's maintenance log (electronic work system) listed a service…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-09 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment in six (105, 106, 109, 110, 111, and 112) out of eleven resident rooms and the medication room. Findings Included: During a facility tour on 5/7/24 at 9:30 a.m. the following observations were made: In room [ROOM NUMBER] there was a hole in the wall next to the resident's bed. Around the bed the wire mold was split and there were exposed wires. The base board next to the sink was separating from the wall. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). In room [ROOM NUMBER] there was a deep hole in the wall where the concrete infrastructure was observed next to the resident's bed. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). On 5/7/2024 at 9:40 a.m. during a tour of common areas and resident rooms, the following observations were made in resident rooms 109, 110, 111 and 112. Each room accommodated up to 4 residents, with a shared toilet and sink for up to eight residents. rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] and rooms…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-09 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, interview and review of the facility's policy Policy and Procedure: Topic Safety the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was being utilized in safe operating conditions. Findings included: An observation on 05/07/24 at 9:30 a.m., revealed a two-door reach in refrigerator that had standing water sitting at the bottom of the refrigerator. There was a constant water drip coming from the top of the refrigerator. The water was observed dripping on a container of strawberries and then running off into the floor of refrigerator where standing water was present. Photographic evidence obtained. An observation on 05/07/24 at 9:35 a.m., revealed a sink that had a plastic cup with bottom cut out to fit over the faucet. The plastic cup sat over the bottom portion of the sink facet. A water drip was observed and continued to drip out of the faucet where the cup was placed. Photographic evidence obtained. An observation on 05/07/24 at 9:40 a.m., revealed a one-door reach in refrigerator that had standing water sitting at the bottom of the refrigerator.…
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 · D2024-05-09 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 the resident and resident representative received a bed hold notification prior to and upon transfer to the hospital for one (Resident #29) of two residents reviewed for bed hold notification. Findings included: Review of the admission Record for Resident #29 revealed an original admission date in January of 2024, a transfer to the hospital on [DATE], and a readmission to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the contact information revealed the resident's name and a second name labeled as Responsible Party/Health Care Proxy/and Emergency Contact #1. Review of a document titled, Health Care Proxy Designation and Acceptance Letter (FL) dated 01/12/24 confirmed the contact listed on the admission Record was the designated health care decision maker for Resident #29. Review of a document titled, BED HOLD AND IN-HOUSE TRANSFER POLICY, showed a form with Resident #29's name at the top. The area to list the Resident Representative's name was blank, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-09 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and review of the facility's policy PASRR Requirements Level I & Level II, the facility failed to ensure seven (Residents #3, #5, #13, #18, #19, #20 and #26) of fourteen sample residents reviewed for PASRR screens had an accurate Level 1 Pre-admission Screening & Resident Review (PASRR). Findings included: 1. A review of the admission Record showed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to Hypertension, Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Alzheimer's Disease and Persistent Mood [Affective] Disorder. Review of Resident #3's Level I PASRR not dated revealed, Section 1. Guide for determining an indication of a diagnoses of a serious mental illness- check those that apply showed Anxiety Disorder and Major Depression was not checked. A review of the admission Record showed Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to Malignant Neoplasm of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-09 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to accommodate resident preferences for activities based on assessments for two residents (#4, #13) of two residents sampled, related to not ensuring enough electrical outlets for an appliance (television) functionality. Findings included: 1. An interview on 03/07/2022 at 10:45 a.m. with Resident #4's Responsible Party stated they (the family) purchased the resident a television (TV) a few months ago for her room, however, is unsure what happened to it. An observation on 03/08/2022 at 10:04 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting upwards in a chair at bed side staring off with a blanket expression. The resident was alert with confusion. A TV was observed in the upper left corner at the base of the bed turned off. A review of Resident #4's admission Record revealed a medical diagnoses of muscle wasting, need for assistance with personal care, dementia in other diseases, and schizophrenia. A review of Resident #4's Care Plan revealed a focus area for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-09 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 administer blood pressure medications according to the physicians ordered blood pressure parameters for two residents (#2 and #33) of seven residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings included 1) Review of Resident #2's admission Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include cerebrovascular disease and hypertension. Review of Resident #2's current physician orders revealed an order for Amlodipine Besylate tablet 5 milligrams (mg) give 1 tablet by mouth twice a day for hypertension. Hold for B/P (blood pressure) systolic <120 and or a diastolic <70. This order started on 7/18/2021 and was discontinued on 3/1/22. Review of the Resident #2's February 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she was administered Amlodipine Besylate 5 mg eight times when her blood pressure was not within the physicians' ordered parameters. On 2/8/22 at 9:00 a.m. the documented blood pressure (B/P) was 104/60,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-03-05 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to obtain a physician response and to implement orders related to pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner for one (#19) out of five residents sampled for unnecessary medications. Findings included: Resident #19 was interviewed on 3/2/21 at 12:37 p.m. while he was lying in bed after the noon meal. On 3/4/21 at 12:40 p.m., the resident was observed sitting on the front porch with supervision smoking a cigarette. Resident #19 was admitted on [DATE]. The admission Record included diagnoses not limited to unspecified Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and unspecified Peripheral Vascular Disease. The 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 out of 15 indicative of severe cognitive impairment. A review of a Pharmacy Recommendation for Resident #19, dated 12/5/20, indicated a recommendation that read, Resident has an order for Spiriva Inhaler. The normal dose for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$97,747 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $97,747 — penalty dated 2025-09-10
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SENIOR HEALTH SOUTH — 8 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 | 1 of 5 | 1.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 1.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SENIOR HEALTH PROPERTIES SOUTH, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/30/2000 |
| SENIOR HEALTH SOUTH EX LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 05/05/2025 |
| OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2003 |
| JAFFE, HOWARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2012 |
| DEPIANO, RICH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2012 |
| MULLEN, ANN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2012 |
| RICHMOND, PENNY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2012 |
| CONSULTING SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/25/2025 |
| ELEUS HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/05/2025 |
| FACILITY SUPPORT COMPANY, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/21/2025 |
| KANE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/06/2012 |
| AMES, ANGELIQUE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/15/2018 |
| JACKSON, MARCIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/03/2017 |
| SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/19/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
8 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 79% 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 $157K 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 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 105714. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-05-09, 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.