Solaris Healthcare Parkway
800 SE Central Pkwy, Stuart, FL 34994 · Non profit - Corporation · 177 certified beds · (772) 287-9912 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (21% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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 | 4 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 | 5 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 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 | 11.5% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.4% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.1% | 4.6% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.1% | 2.5% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.9% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.6% | 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 | 3.8% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.0% | 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 | 10.5% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.6% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 34.5% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.3% | 9.1% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.16 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.55 | 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.
56.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 382 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.0% 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 136 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 62% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 30% 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 | 56.0%CMS range 51.1–60.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 18.0%CMS range 14.8–20.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 61.0% | 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 | 52.9% | 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 | 55.9% | 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 | 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 | 98.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.7% | 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 | 0.4% | 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 | 4.3% | 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 | 9.0%CMS range 6.1–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.04 | 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 177 beds and averages 170.6 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.27 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.77 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 21% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-03-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a secure environment to prevent an elopement for a resident with dementia and documented wandering and exit-seeking behavior, for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for elopement, Resident #134. The resident eloped from the facility on 03/07/23 between 2:20 PM and 2:30 PM and was returned to the facility by a 'passerby' after being located in the community near the facility at 2:30 PM. It was unknown by facility staff and management precisely where Resident #134 was located. Upon being returned to the facility, Resident #134 was placed in the Memory Care Unit (secured unit). Upon assessment after being returned to the facility, Resident #134 was not harmed and showed no signs of distress. The facility's failure to adequately supervise and provide a secure environment for Resident #134, who was identified as an elopement risk, resulted in the finding of Immediate Jeopardy, past noncompliance on 03/07/23. The Immediate Jeopardy 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 · D2025-12-04 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a properly executed DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) Order for 3 of 3 sampled residents, as evidenced by incomplete yellow copy DNR Order forms for Residents #134, #116, and #62.The findings included:Review of the policy Advance Directives dated [DATE], documented in part, 5. b. Do Not Resuscitate – Indicates that, in case of respiratory or cardiac failure, the resident, legal guardian, health care DPOA, health care surrogate or health care proxy has directed that no cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or other life-saving methods are to be used. Review of the policy Do Not Resuscitate Order dated [DATE], documented in part, 3. Should the resident be transferred to the hospital, a photocopy of the DNRO form must be provided to the EMT personnel transporting the resident to the hospital. 1. Review of the record revealed Resident #134 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · 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, record, review and interviews, the facility failed to provide care and services for the treatment and prevention of wounds for 5 of 38 sampled residents as evidenced by failure to follow physician orders for the treatment of a wound for Residents #182 and #36, failure to ensure Resident #184 had treatment for a rash, and failure to complete weekly skin assessments for Residents #182, #27, and #134.The findings included:1. Record review revealed Resident #182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 on a 0-15 scale, indicating no cognitive impairment. During an observation on 12/01/25 at 11:09 AM, Resident #182 was observed sitting in his wheelchair wearing shorts and a white square dressing that was undated was noted to his right shin. During an interview on 12/01/25 at 11:09 AM, when asked why about the dressing on the right leg, Resident #182 stated, Well that happened in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate care and positioning equipment for 2 of 3 sampled residents as evidenced by failure to provide properly fitting wheelchair leg rests for Resident #118 and failure to provide a hand/towel roll for hand contractures to Resident #12. The findings included: 1. Review of clinical record revealed Resident #118 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of Cerebral Infarction. Review of the current Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #118 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 on a 0-15 scale, indicating the resident had intact cognition. During an initial interview on 12/01/25 at 11:20 AM, Resident #118 stated that he would like to go to activities but cannot go since his knees do not bend anymore and sitting in the wheelchair causes his legs to hurt. Resident #118 stated that he thinks he is worse now than when he got here. Resident #118 was asked…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to assess residents for safe smoking for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for smoking, Residents #38 and #170. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, 'Smoking Policy' with a reference date of 01/07/22, documented, in part: 'Procedure: 3. A smoking assessment will be completed upon admission, quarterly during care plan review, and upon a change in resident condition 1. Record review revealed Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the resident's most recent complete assessment, a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with a reference date of 09/03/25, Resident #38 had a Brief Interview for Metal Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #38's diagnoses at the time of the assessment included: Heart failure, Hypertension, DM, Hyponatremia, anxiety disorder, Depression, Chronic lung disease, Respiratory failure, Muscle weakness, Chronic pain, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services for oxygen use for 1 of 3 sampled residents as evidenced by the lack of oxygen order and oxygen saturation assessment for Resident #124.The findings included:Review of the policy Oxygen Administration dated January 2020, documented in part, 1. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration.Review of the record showed Resident #124 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis including Heart Failure. Review of the current Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, on a 0 to 15 scale, indicating severe cognitive impairment.Review of the progress noted dated 10/18/25, revealed the resident had a productive cough and wheezing for which a chest X-ray was ordered. Based on the results, the resident was diagnosed with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on competency review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices during the medication pass observation with 1 of 6 licensed nurses (Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse), as evidenced by the failure to dispose of gloves after use, failure to ensure hand hygiene with glove use, failure to properly disinfect a glucometer (device that measures the resident's blood sugar level), and failure to properly dispose of the used lancet. The medication pass observation was for Resident #38.The findings included:Review of the facility's competency for blood glucose monitoring revealed the following steps: 1. Perform hand hygiene before completing blood glucose testing or disinfecting. 2. Put on single-use gloves prior to blood glucose testing or disinfecting. 12. Dispose of lancet in biohazardous waste sharps container. 14. Clean the glucometer after each use, using the approved bleach disinfectant wipe and ensure all external surfaces of the glucometer remain wet for a period of no less than 3 minute, or contact time designated by manufacturer by…
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 · D2024-06-06 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure accessibility of the call bell for 1 of 1 sampled resident, Resident #99, observed needing assistance and unable to call staff. The findings included: Review of the record revealed Resident #99 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, on a 0 to 15 scale, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. This same MDS documented the resident usually understands and is usually understood and required partial to total assistance from staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the current resident care plans dated 06/06/24 for Visual impairment, Cognitive Loss/Dementia, ADLs, and Pain, all included the approach: call light within reach. During an observation and interview on 06/03/24 at 12:00 PM, Resident #99 was observed sitting in his wheelchair close to the footboard area of 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 before2024-06-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the anchoring of indwelling urinary catheter tubing for 2 of 3 sampled residents, one of whom had a history of urinary tract infections (UTIs), Residents #34 and #204. The findings included: Review of the policy, titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, revised 01/25/23, documented, in part, Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Changing Catheters . 2. Ensure that the catheter remains secured to reduce friction and movement at the insertion site. (Note: Catheter tubing should be secured to the resident's inner thigh.) 1. Review of the record revealed Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with readmission on [DATE]. Record review revealed a diagnosis of urinary retention with the placement of an indwelling urinary catheter. The physician order dated 05/29/24 documented to secure the indwelling urinary catheter with a leg strap. The current order dated…
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 · D2024-06-06 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure competent nurse staff for 2 of 7 sampled residents observed during the medication administration observation. Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), failed to follow the facility's process related to the administration and documentation of insulin for Resident #49; and Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse failed to use proper technique during a nasal spray administration for Resident #74. The findings included: 1. A medication administration observation for Resident #49 was made with Staff C, LPN, on 06/04/24 beginning at 4:59 PM. Staff C prepared oral medications that were due at that time, along with an insulin pen stating the resident had 7 units due at that time and headed for the resident's room. At the entrance to the room, the surveyor stopped the LPN from entering the room, and asked the LPN the type of insulin she had for Resident #49. At this time the LPN stated Novolin R (regular insulin), showing the label to the surveyor. The LPN obtained the blood sugar level for Resident…
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 · D2024-06-06 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement pharmacy recommendations approved by the physician for 1 of 5 sampled residents, Resident #38. The findings included: Review of the policy, titled, Medication Regimen Review, revised January 2018, documented, in part, Procedure: . G. Recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and/or the prescriber. Review of the record revealed Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the current orders revealed the order initiated on 05/31/23 for the anti-reflux medication, Protonix 40 milligrams (mg), ordered daily for Anemia. Review of the monthly pharmacy reviews revealed on 12/17/23 the pharmacist identified Resident #38 had been on the anti-reflux medication Protonix 40 mg daily for more than 12 weeks, and recommended the medication be discontinued. This recommendation also documented the need for appropriate documentation supporting an underlying chronic disease if continued. On 01/03/24,…
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 · D2024-06-06 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and policy review, the facility failed to prepare pureed food with the correct texture. This had the potential to affect 16 of 165 current residents who had a physician ordered pureed diet. The findings included: Review of the facility's written description of the pureed diet, reprinted from the Manual of Medical Nutrition Therapy 2022, documented, The pureed diet is designed to provide soft, smooth foods that minimize the amount of chewing required and are easy to swallow. Any regular or therapeutic diet may be pureed. The pureed diet is indicated for individuals with chewing or swallowing problems. On 06/05/24 at 11:50 AM, observations in the kitchen revealed the pureed diet Italian Parmesan Breaded Pork and the pureed Parslied Noodles did not look smooth. At this time, a sample of the pureed food prepared for the lunch meal was requested. Upon tasting the food, the pureed pork had chopped up strings in it and the pureed pasta had lumps. At this time, when asked about the process for ensuring the correct texture of the pureed foods, the Director of Food…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-29 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper perineal care to residents with a history of and current Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) for 1 of 3 sampled residents observed during perineal care, Resident #3. The finding included: The policy titled perineal care, dated 11/01/2018, documented, in part: the purposes of this procedure are to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritations, and to observe the resident's skin condition .; the following equipment and supplies will be necessary when performing this procedure: wash basin, towels, washcloth, soap (or other authorized cleansing agent) .; and steps in the procedure: #9 for a female resident: a) wet washcloth and apply soap or skin cleansing agent. Review of the in-house UTI [Urinary Tract Infection] list, dated from October 2023 to present (January 29, 2024), evidenced there were 25 cases of facility acquired UTIs during this time. Review of record for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-24 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to act on the voiced grievance for 1 of 3 sampled residents who utilize the sit-to-stand transfer device. Resident #49 voiced her concerns to Staff J, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), who failed to act upon the voiced grievance. The findings included: Review of the policy, titled, Grievance Policy (undated) documented, in part, All persons are encouraged to make requests, share concerns, and file grievances regarding care and/or services without fear of retribution or negative treatment. Customer Service/Grievance forms are available throughout the facility at the nursing stations and upon request. A concern or grievance may be given orally or in writing. The facility had the capacity to hold 177 residents, located on three different units, North, South, and East. The East unit where Resident #49 resided encompassed the 500, 600, and 700 halls. At the time of the survey there were 57 residents on that unit, and 6 utilized 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 · D2023-03-24 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate a care plan for newly identified behaviors for 1 of 26 sampled residents, whose care plans were reviewed, Resident #134. The findings included: The facility's policy, titled, Care Plans - Comprehensive, most recently revised on 01/25/23, documented, in part, the following: Policy Statement - An individualized comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the residents' medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs is developed for each resident. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Our facility's Care Planning/Interdisciplinary Team, in coordination with the resident, his/her family or representative (sponsor), develops and maintains a comprehensive car plan for each resident that identifies the highest level of functioning the resident may be expected to attain. 2. The comprehensive care plan is based on a thorough assessment that included, but is not limited to, the MDS. 3. Each…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SOLARIS HEALTHCARE — 22 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARKWAY HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/20/2015 |
| SOLARIS FOUNDATION INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/06/2015 |
| SOLARIS HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/06/2015 |
| CORLEY, SHAWN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| WINTERS, LINDA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| BAYERLEIN, DENISE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| BELL, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| BERKOWITZ, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| BLAKESLEE, DANIELLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/02/2020 |
| BUXBAUM, MIRIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| HERZKA, CHAIM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| OBERLANDER, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| PARKER, LAURIE | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/09/2025 |
| FADEL, AHMAD | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| PARKER, SHELBY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 105687. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-04, 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.