Bay Village Of Sarasota
8400 Vamo Road, Sarasota, FL 34231 · Non profit - Corporation · 95 certified beds · (941) 966-5611 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- 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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 16.9% | 8.7% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.7% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.3% | 0.7% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.6% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.6% | 9.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.7% | 14.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.2% | 10.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.5% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.2% | 94.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.6% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.8% | 9.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.75 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.63 | 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.
53.8% 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 383 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.1% 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 189 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 53.8%CMS range 49.6–57.0 | 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 | 11.1%CMS range 7.5–14.3 | 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 | 56.1% | 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 | 55.6% | 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 | 25.9% | 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 | 98.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.3% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 4.0–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 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 95 beds and averages 58.2 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 37 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.98 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.87 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.94 is at or above 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 4.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.04 on weekdays — 4% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.94 to 0.70 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2024-04-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility failed to prepare, and store food in a sanitary manner by failing to cover and date food in 2 walk-in coolers and 1 refrigerator. The facility failed to ensure staff used the three compartment sink appropriately including use of the proper sanitizing agent. The facility failed to ensure staff wear hair restraints during preparation of food. The facililty failed to service and maintain ice machines in the main dining room and three of three nourishment rooms. The findings included: 1. The facility policy and procedure for Walking Cooler, documented to protect and ensure that food is free from foodborne illness, contamination, and hazards. All foods stored in coolers are labeled and dated. During an initial tour of the kitchen with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) and the Director of Dining (DOD) on 4/15/24 at 9:20 a.m., the following was observed: a.) In the line reach in refrigerator was a box of muffins without a date and sitting on top of the muffins was another box containing empty plastic cups. The observation was confirmed the CDM. Photographic evidence…
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 · E2024-04-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, resident interviews, and resident council meeting notes, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at the appropriate temperature for 4 (Residents Resident #23, #26, #259, and #261) of 4 residents interviewed and Resident Council concerns reviewed from 1/2023 through 12/2023 for food palatability and appropriate temperature. This had the potential of decline in health due to poor nutrition. The findings included: On 4/16/24 at 12:25 p.m., Resident #26 was observed with a sandwich and pot roast stew. She said the sandwich is warm today, and the pot roast stew needs heated. Her meal ticket has a tossed salad listed and there was no salad on Resident #26's tray. During an interview on 4/15/24 at 2:18 p.m., Resident #26 said the food is not good. The grilled cheese is cold. The bread does not look like it is grilled, and the cheese is not melted. The bun was ice cold on a sandwich. The mac and cheese was served cold. During an interview on 4/15/24 at 9:30 a.m., Resident #259 stated the food is up and down. The list they gave to…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a urinary catheter in a safe and sanitary manner for 1 (Resident #5) of 1 resident reviewed with an indwelling urinary catheter. The findings included: The facility policy Catheter Care documented The purpose of this procedure is to prevent urinary catheter associated complications, including urinary tract infections. Use aseptic technique when handling or manipulating the drainage system. Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor. Review of the clinical record documented Resident #5 had an admission date of 7/31/22 with diagnoses including schizophrenia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertensive heart disease. The record revealed the resident was receiving hospice services. The record showed a physician order dated 4/13/24 instructing staff to insert an indwelling urinary catheter to promote wound healing of a pressure wound on the resident's coccyx. On 4/16/24 at 9:33 a.m., Resident #5 was observed in her room in bed and was…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure its medication error rate remained below 5%. Five licensed nurses with 26 opportunities were observed. Two medication errors were identified resulting in a 7.69% error rate. The findings included: On 4/18/24 at 8:34 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff Q was observed administering medications to Resident #261. LPN Staff Q administered 1 chewable 81 milligram (mg) aspirin to Resident #261. The physician's order was ordered for aspirin 81 mg delayed release. On 4/18/24 at 8:20 a.m., LPN Staff P was observed administering medications to Resident #23. LPN Staff P administered 1 tablet, vitamin D 25 micrograms (mcg,) for Resident #23. The physician's order was vitamin D3 25 mcg (1,000 unit) tablet, 6 tablets by mouth once daily for vitamin deficiency. An interview on 4/18/24 at 8:55 a.m., with LPN Staff Q, she confirmed she gave a chewable 81 mg aspirin to Resident #261 and the physician's order is aspirin 81 mg tablet, delayed release, 1 tablet by mouth once daily for cerebral infarction. An…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #19) of 3 residents reviewed for dental services received appropriate care and services for broken teeth. The findings included: On 4/15/24 at 12:43 p.m., Resident #19 revealed she had missing upper and lower teeth. The resident said she lost several of her teeth several months ago, and because of the missing teeth, her diet was changed to mechanical soft so she could eat her food. She said she would like to eat regular food, but due to her missing teeth, she is unable to eat a regular diet. A review of Resident #19's medical record revealed her original admission to the facility was on 11/16/17 and a readmission on [DATE]. The Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] stated Resident #19 had no broken or loosely fitting full or partial dentures, natural teeth or tooth fragments, or chewing or swallowing difficulty. A dietary progress note dated 10/24/22, said Resident #19 had lost three front teeth,…
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 · E2024-04-18 · 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 observation on interview record review and policy the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent the elopement of one resident (Resident #162) of one resident surveyed for elopement and failed to ensure four of four residents assessed as an elopement risk currently residing at the facility had appropriate interventions to prevent the potential for an elopement. Findings included: Resident #162 is a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a history of cognitive communication deficit, abnormal gait, lack of coordination, and hypertensive heart disease. Review of the Elopement/Wander Risk Screen dated 12/21/23 shows Resident #162 was assessed with being a risk for elopement. The intervention listed as being initiated on 12/21/23 was a wanderguard was put in place at that time. According to the timeline provided in the facility's investigation, on 12/24/23 at approximately 9:30 a.m., Resident #162 was last seen in her room by staff who were attempting to administer her…
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 · E2022-06-23 · tag F0943 — patternGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 5 (Staff C, D, E, F and G) of 10 staff reviewed had the required education and training in abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Failure to provide staff with abuse, neglect, and exploitation training prior to working with facility residents could lead to staff not knowing how to prevent and report abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The findings included: On 6/21/22, review of Administrator (ADM) Staff C's employee record revealed her start date was 7/15/19. Review of her employee training records revealed she did not receive education or training in abuse, neglect, and exploitation prior to working with the facility residents. On 6/21/22, review of Dietary Aid (DA) Staff D's employee record revealed her start date was 5/2/22. Review of her employee training records revealed she did not receive education or training in abuse, neglect, and exploitation prior to working with the facility residents. On 6/21/22, review of Security Guard (SG) Staff E's employee record revealed her start date was 2/21/22. Review of her…
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 · D2022-06-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure timely response to call lights to meet the needs of 2 (Resident #94 and #96) of 2 residents reviewed. The findings included: On 6/20/22 at 1:42 p.m., Resident #94 said staff did not respond to the call light at night in a timely manner. Resident #94 said it would take 10 to 15 minutes for staff to respond to his call light. He said it happened every night and it was worse on the weekends. On 6/21/22 at 9:01 a.m., the restroom call light for Resident #94 on the Magnolia hallway observed sounding and flashing rapidly from the nursing station. Registered Nurse Staff B was observed standing at a medication cart directly in front of the nursing station. At 9:06 a.m., Resident 94's restroom call light continued to flash and sound. Staff B continued to stand at the medication cart and did not respond to the call light. Licensed Practical Nurse Staff A was observed walking to the nursing station, converse, and wash her hands at a sink next to the nursing station. After several minutes Staff 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.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-23 · 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 interview the facility failed to complete a level one Pre admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), and report significant mental illness changes to the appropriate state agencies (KEPRO) for 2 (Resident #10 and #25) of 3 residents reviewed with newly diagnosed psychiatric disorder. The findings included: Record review revealed Resident #10 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no diagnosis of psychotic disorder or schizophrenia noted at the time of admission. The Physician's order dated 12/17/21 showed Resident #10 had a new order for Risperidone 0.25 milligram (mg) twice daily for delirium, and psychotic agitation. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10's cognition was moderately impaired. Resident #10 was taking an Antipsychotic medication six days a week. The active diagnoses listed included non Alzheimer's dementia, and anxiety disorder. On 2/23/22, the physician issued an…
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 · D2022-06-23 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a psychotropic (medication that affects brain activity) as needed medication (PRN) had a fixed duration of time for 1 (Resident #10) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings included: Review of the monthly pharmacy review for Resident #10 revealed a pharmacy recommendation printed on 4/12/22 to the physician that read, Lorazepam 1 mg [milligram] by mouth every 4 hours as needed for severe anxiety. (Since 3/22/22). The new Mega Rule guidelines require PRN psychoactive orders to have a duration of 14 days for the initial order. Then the resident should be seen by the prescriber who may reorder the medication for a fixed duration after fully documenting the need for the medication by the resident. There was no documentation in Resident #10's medical record the as needed Lorazepam was changed and no documentation from the physician of the benefit of the lorazepam or the set duration of the medication. The order for the PRN Ativan remained in place. The monthly pharmacy recommendation printed on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-12-17 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow physician orders, to promote healing of a pressure ulcer for 1 (Resident #30) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy for Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown (undated) read the physician . will order pertinent wound treatments, including pressure reduction surfaces . Review of the facility's policy and procedure on Skin Evaluations (effective date 6/10/19) read 3. Licensed wound care nurse, RN or ARNP will review to ensure necessary treatments are implemented. 5. Any resident with a prescribed positioning or medical device will have a CMS [Color, Movement, Sensation] tool initiated for further evaluation of skin to prevent potential impairment. Review of the Minimum Data Set (tool used to assess and plan care) dated 11/5/20 showed Resident #30 was at risk of pressure ulcers/injuries. Review of the clinical record showed on 11/19/20 Resident #30 developed a stage II pressure ulcer (ulcer that expands into deep layers of the skin). A physician…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| COMBS, THOMAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| GOODRICH, DONALD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| HOWE, THOMAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| JUNKINS, KATHLEEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| OLWERT, ANDREW | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| PENN, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| ROBINSON, ABIGAIL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| SEEGER, SALLY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| SHERWOOD, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| SNYDER, DONALD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| TAYLOR, THOMAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| GRIMES, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/28/2025 |
| NICHOLS, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2017 |
| WIZBA, CHRISTINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/22/2025 |
| CAUGHRON, DIANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/07/2013 |
| JONES, TIMOTHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/18/2023 |
| LUNSFORD, MARVIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/10/2018 |
| PITCHER, LAURA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/03/2000 |
| ROTH, KIMBERLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2021 |
| STEIN, BARRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| WILLIAMS, ASHLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/12/2024 |
| BAY VILLAGE OF SARASOTA INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/22/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 37 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner 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.
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 106085. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.