Wrights Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center
11300 110th Ave N, Seminole, FL 33778 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (727) 391-9986 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $34,333 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-12)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 1.7% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.1% | 5.5% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.7% | 0.7% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.5% | 4.6% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.1% | 2.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.9% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 33.3% | 14.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.2% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 4.4% | 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 | 9.2% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| 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 | 29.4% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.6% | 9.1% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.35 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.85 | 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.
58.0% 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 91 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.4% 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 41 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 76% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 58.0%CMS range 46.8–66.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 7.2–14.1 | 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 | 63.4% | 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 | 53.7% | 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 | 53.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 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 | 5.5%CMS range 2.9–10.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.14 | 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 60 beds and averages 49.9 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 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 3.21 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.54 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.51 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-11-12 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from abuse by an agency staff member, for one resident (#1) out of 3 residents sampled for abuse. On 11/04/2024 a physical altercation was witnessed to occur between Staff A, Agency Certified Nursing Assistant and Resident #1. Resident #1 suffered injuries to include: purple discoloration of the left eye on the eye lid and under the eyebrow, purplish discoloration along his left jaw line, and a swollen right forearm with redness near his elbow extending down to his mid forearm. Resident #1 was transferred to a higher level of care for evaluation and treatment as a result of the altercation. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbances, glaucoma, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications, personal history of transient ischemic attack, cerebral infarction without…
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 before2026-01-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to check the temperature of food items and use proper hand hygiene during meal preparation and meal-plating service.Finding Included: During an observation on 1/19/26 at 10:26 a.m., Staff B, [NAME] was preparing raw meat wearing blue gloves, he grabbed a black notebook, opened it, placed the notebook back on the rack and continued preparing the raw meat. During an observation on 1/19/26 at 10:36 a.m., A three compartment sink with soiled dishes in all three compartments was next to a tan rack with a silver pan, a sliver metal lid and multiple other clean dishes were observed on the clean side of the dish area. During an observation on 1/20/26 at 12:05 p.m. Staff B was wearing a black hooded shirt that had two strings hanging down to his mid chest area. The strings were touching the resident's food as Staff B was putting the food trays together. Staff E, Cook, microwaved a soup and did not take the temperature prior to putting it on a resident's tray. During an observation on 1/21/26 at 10:13 a.m. no temperature…
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 before2026-01-22 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate PASRR screening was completed for four residents (#4, 5, 34, and 40) of five residents reviewed for PASRR. 1. Review of the admission record showed Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include bipolar disorder, and dementia. Review of Resident #40's level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) dated 12/2/25 revealed a level II PASRR evaluation not required was marked. During an interview on 1/30/25 at 10:50 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse the MDS nurse said she does not consider bipolar disorder to be a serious mental illness. She said based on her understanding options in PASRR Level I Section B – Intellectual Disability (ID) or suspected ID must be selected to trigger a Level II referral. In further reviewing Resident #40's PASRR Level 1 the MDS nurse said that on the PASRR Section II question six which the answer is selected as no, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plans for two residents (#5 and #39) out of two reviewed.Findings Included:Review Resident #5's admission record showed admission to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include parkinsonism-11/4/25, opioid dependence-11/24/25, anxiety-11//24/25, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-11/24/25, psychosis-11/24/25 and major depressive disorder-11/24/25.Resident #5's care plan did not address PTSD diagnosis, triggers and interventions to decrease expressions or indications of distress.Review of Resident #5's order summary report, dated 1/22/26 revealed orders including the following medications: Clonazepam 0.5mg daily for anxiety, Sertraline 150 mg for depression and Wellbutrin XL 150 mg for major depressive disorder.Review Resident #5's psychiatry and psychology note dated 1/8/25 revealed PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder): The history suggests that this patient has…
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 before2023-09-20 · tag F0645 — patternPASARR 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to confirm the accuracy of a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review and failed to correct the document for two (Residents #6, and #12) of twenty-eight sampled residents. Findings Included: 1. A review of Resident #6's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with unspecified severity unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety and unspecified single episode major depressive disorder. The Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), dated 8/3/23, for Resident #6 did not include any Mental Illness diagnoses. Section IV of the screening revealed that the resident did not have a diagnosis or suspicion of Serious Mental Illness or Intellectual Disability and a Level II PASRR evaluation was not required. A review of Resident #6's active Order Summary Report identified the resident received the antipsychotic medication of Aripiprazole daily for mood…
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 before2023-09-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety related to labeling and dating foods, discarding expired foods, and using appropriate hand hygiene. Findings included: On 09/18/23 at 9:58 a.m., an initial tour of the kitchen was conducted with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM). The following concerns were observed: the wall in the kitchen was ripped and missing tiles; a box of bruised, cut, and sprouted potatoes; two opened bags of blueberries, one opened bag of strawberries, one opened bag of pineapple chunks, one opened bag of cauliflower florets, one opened bag of broccoli, and one opened bag of egg patties was observed in the reach in freezer undated; an opened bag of hotdog buns and one opened container of garlic parmesan wing sauce was observed in the dry storage room undated; one opened 16 oz bottle of water was observed in the dry storage room; two bottles of heavy-duty degreaser and two containers of sanitizers were observed sitting on the top of boxes 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 · D2023-09-20 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure two (Resident #103 and #13) of twenty-two sampled residents were assessed for the self-administration of medications. Findings included: 1. An observation and interview was conducted on 9/18/23 at 11:29 a.m., with Resident #103. An over-bed table was positioned in front of the resident and a medication cup containing two white round tablets was within reach of the resident. The resident identified the tablets as Xanax then said they were a name brand pain reliever/anti-inflammatory. A review of Resident #103's New admission Evaluation, dated 9/14/23 at 3:45 p.m., revealed the resident had not expressed a desire to self-administer medications. The review of the resident's evaluations on 9/18/23 at 12:53 p.m. showed the resident had not been evaluated for self-administration of medications. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) The Order Summary Report, active as of 9/19/23 at 7:37 p.m., for Resident #103 did not include a physician order allowing the resident to self-administer any medications. A review 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 · D2023-09-20 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to protect the Private Healthcare Information and personal data for three (Residents #55, #46, and #54) of 28 sampled residents as evidence by conversations held at the receptionist desk with a visitor standing nearby and with resident documents left unattended at the receptionist desk. Findings included: On 9/18/23 at 2:50 p.m., Staff D, Executive Assistant/Receptionist, was talking on the telephone at the reception desk making an appointment for a walker to be delivered to an unknown resident's home address. The name, date of birth , and home address of the resident was given to the recipient of the phone call. This information was overheard by this writer as well as other team members from the conference room across the hallway, approximately 12 feet, from the receptionist's desk. On 9/19/23 at 10:45 a.m., Staff D was sitting at the receptionist's desk while a female visitor was standing directly in front of the desk. The staff member was speaking to an unknown person on the telephone and provided the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to assess and develop a comprehensive care plan related to side rails for two (Residents #12 and #18) out of twenty-eight sampled residents. Findings Included: 1. On 9/18/23 at 1:33 p.m., an observation was conducted of Resident #12's bed. The observation showed a mattress that was bolstered at the head of bed (HOB) and end of bed (EOB) with 1/4 rails lowered in a manner that produced a 1/2 rail covering the distance in between the two bolsters. A review of Resident #12's admission Record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The record included diagnoses not limited to unspecified severity unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Parkinson's Disease. A review of the annual comprehensive assessment, dated 7/22/23, showed Resident #12 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 4, indicative of severe…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan with appropriate interventions following a fall on 04/20/23 for one resident (Resident #37) out of the sampled twenty-eight residents. The resident had a second fall on 04/23/23 in the same location and around the same time. Resident #37 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and was found to have a fractured cervical spine (C1). Findings included: On 09/18/23 at 11:43 a.m., Resident #37 was observed sitting in the main dining room in a wheelchair and wearing a neck brace. On 09/19/23 at 10:27 a.m., Resident #37 was observed sitting in the dining room in a wheelchair and wearing a neck brace. The admission Record showed Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include progressive supranuclear ophthalmoplegia, unspecified displaced fracture of first cervical vertebra, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral…
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 before2023-09-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 did not ensure one (Resident #14) of twenty-eight sampled residents received on-going nursing assessments following a change in condition during 2 of 3 days of survey. Findings included: Review of an undated facility policy titled, Resident Right-Notification of Change, showed it is the policy of the facility to inform the resident and or their legal representative of changes in the resident's condition or plan of care in such a manner to acknowledge and respect resident rights. A need to alter treatment significantly means a need to stop a form of treatment . or commence a new form of treatment to deal with a problem. On 09/18/23 at 12:30 p.m., Resident #14 was observed sleeping in her bed all morning. The resident did not eat lunch. The resident did not respond to the interview. A review of an admission record for Resident #14 showed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of unspecified dementia. On 09/18/23 at 12:34…
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 · E2023-09-20 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure grievances were addressed in a timely manner for resident council members with the potential to affect a census of 50 residents. Findings included: A review of an undated document titled, Nursing Home Resident's Rights, showed each resident shall have the right to present grievances and recommend changes in policies and services free from restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal. A review of the facility's grievance logs dated May 2023 to September 2023 showed the facility did not have any grievances recorded. The review showed no documentation related to any concerns/complaints the residents may have had. A review of Resident council meeting minutes revealed on-going grievances reported as follows: On 08/31/23 at 2:00 p.m., a resident council meeting was held attended by 7 residents. The residents reported concerns with, increased bugs sightings. Call lights responses still longer than they would appreciate. Nurses and CNAs (certified Nursing assistants) on personal phone calls and using earbuds…
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 · D2021-09-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident was provided with dignity related residents exposed body and confidentiality regarding resident's bodily functions for 2 (#30 and #39) of 27 sampled residents. Findings included: 1. Observations on 9/09/21 at 7:46 AM from the hallway outside the resident's room, Resident#30 was noted to be in her room moving around organizing her closet. The resident was noted to be wearing a hospital gown that was open in the back exposing her bare back and her incontinent brief. It was also noted the curtain to the window that looks out to the enclosed patio was open about 2 feet and a staff member was noted to be walking back and forth on the patio repeatedly passing the resident's window. Continued observation at this time revealed that Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was standing in the hallway and said good morning to the resident from the hallway and explained to this surveyor that the resident was going home today.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-09-10 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure wound care orders and consistent treatment were in place for one Resident (#40) of three residents reviewed. Findings Included: During an interview and observation of Resident #40 on 9/8/21 at 10:52 a.m. she stated she had a fall recently and sustained a skin tear to the left arm and left lower leg. The resident stated someone changed the dressing and pulled up her left sleeve which revealed an oval shaped white dressing with illegible writing on her left arm and left leg. During an interview with Staff Member E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) on 9/9/21 at 3:49 p.m. she stated the resident had a fall a few weeks ago and scraped her left arm and left leg. [NAME] said a dressing was applied for pressure and protection as the scrapes were scabbed over. Staff Member E, LPN stated she did not document what the wounds looked like and called them 'scabs.' Staff Member E, LPN stated she did not get an order for wound care as she probably…
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
$34,333 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $34,333 — penalty dated 2024-11-12
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRAHAM, BRAD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 20% | since 03/01/2023 |
| HOLLENBECK, DANIEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 20% | since 09/25/2022 |
| ROCKEFELLER, KEVIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 60% | since 09/15/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
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 105849. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-22, 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.