Indian River Center
7201 Greenboro Dr, West Melbourne, FL 32904 · For profit - Corporation · 179 certified beds · (321) 727-0990 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0610) — most recent Mar 2025
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $74,386 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-15)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 26% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 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 | 7.1% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.5% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.7% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.4% | 4.6% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.5% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.6% | 9.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.8% | 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 | 5.1% | 4.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.1% | 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 | 10.8% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.1% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.3% | 9.1% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.25 | 2.13 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.83 | 1.15 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
34.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 122 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 16.7% 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 126 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 34.6%CMS range 26.5–43.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 7.2–14.0 | 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 | 16.7% | 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 | 22.2% | 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 | 11.9% | 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 | 78.9% | 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 | 99.2% | 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 | 0.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.2%CMS range 3.7–10.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.16 | 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 179 beds and averages 169.4 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.55 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 3.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.66 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-03-15 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent physical abuse of a vulnerable resident by another resident on the memory care unit, (#1), and failed to prevent neglect of a cognitively impaired resident exhibiting worsening behavior, (#2), for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect, of a total sample of 6 residents. This failure contributed to resident #1 sustaining a fractured jaw which led to his transfer to an acute care hospital where he died 6 days later. On 12/25/24 at 9:40 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A witnessed resident #2 enter resident #1's room. Shortly after, resident #1's roommate approached the nurses' station and said resident #2 was in his room on top of resident #1. CNA A said when he got to resident #1's room, resident #2 was coming out with resident #1's sheets in his hands. CNA A explained he saw resident #1 lying on the bed in the dark with his feet hanging off the bed. The next morning, on 12/26/24 at approximately 7:30 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) F 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-03-15 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to conduct an accurate and thorough investigation related to an allegation of resident to resident physical abuse of a vulnerable, cognitively impaired resident, (#1), failed to investigate an injury of unknown origin for the same event when abuse was not substantiated, including completely and thoroughly documenting investigative findings, to ensure the safety of all vulnerable residents on the memory care unit. This failure contributed to resident #1's injury, transfer to a higher level of care where he died 6 days later. Per the facility's 5-Day report to the state agency, on 12/26/24 at approximately 4:00 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A reported to administrative staff that during his shift, the previous day, on 12/25/24 at approximately 9:40 PM, resident #1's roommate reported to him he had seen resident #2 in their room, making contact with resident #1. CNA A went to the room and observed resident #2 exiting with resident #1's bed sheets. 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-03-15 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — isolatedAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to promote a culture of safety on the locked memory care unit to ensure residents' dementia and/or behaviors were free of abuse/neglect. The facility Administration's lack of active involvement and their deficient behavioral monitoring, reporting and investigative standards contributed to negative resident-to-resident interactions, which ended, at times, with physical fights, battery, and/or life altering injuries for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for abuse, neglect and behaviors of a total sample of 6 residents, (#1, and #2). On 12/25/24 at 9:40 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A witnessed resident #2 enter resident #1's room. Shortly after, resident #1's roommate approached the nurses' station and said resident #2 was in his room on top of resident #1. CNA A said when he got to resident #1's room, resident #2 was coming out with resident #1's sheets in his hands. CNA A explained he saw resident #1 lying on the bed in the dark with his feet hanging off…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-15 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II Evaluation was completed for 2 of 3 residents, (#2, #4); and failed to complete Level I screen after significant change in condition for 1 of 3 residents, (#2) reviewed for PASARR, of a total sample of 6 residents. Findings: 1. Review of the medical record revealed resident #2, a [AGE] year-old male was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an in-patient psychiatric hospital with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, major depressive disorder, recurrent severe, anxiety disorder, cognitive impairment, mild neurocognitive disorder, hypermobility syndrome, and affective mood disorder with other behavioral disturbance. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly Assessment with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/29/24 noted during the look-back periods, resident #2 was rarely/never understood and unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-05 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line dressing care was completed as per professional standards, and physician order for 1 of 1 resident of a total sample of 7 residents, (#7). Findings: Resident #7, a [AGE] year-old male was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included acute cystitis with hematuria, urinary tract infection, and chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure. The resident's hospital Discharge Worksheet dated 1/24/25 read, Your PICC/Midline dressing should be changed routinely every 7 days or sooner if becomes wet, soiled or loose. Review of the resident's admission readmission Nursing Evaluation dated 1/29/25 revealed he was admitted from the hospital on 1/29/25. The resident was alert and oriented to person, place, time and event, and had an intravenous (IV) access via a PICC. A PICC is a catheter (small tube) used to give treatments and to take blood. The catheter is inserted into an arm…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-13 · tag F0644 — patternCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure completion and accuracy of Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) documents on admission and/or failed to make referrals for newly evident or possible mental disorders/diagnoses to evaluate the need for specialized services or alternative placement for 6 of 7 residents reviewed for PASARRs, of a total sample of 57 residents, (#30, #34, #1, #41, #94, and #84). Findings: 1. Review of the medical record revealed resident #30, a [AGE] year old female was admitted to the facility from an acute care hospital on 6/26/24 with diagnoses that included history of stroke, metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), epilepsy, dementia, insomnia, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and psychotic disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 7/03/24 indicated during the look-back period, resident #30 was rarely/never understood and staff assessed her cognition as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-13 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — patternHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
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 of facility documentation, the facility failed to effectively implement Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) policies to ensure thorough monitoring of previously identified areas of concern and adequately track performance to ensure prior improvement measures were realized and sustained. Findings: Review of the facility's policy, Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement Plan revealed the following, All employees will participate in ongoing quality assurance and performance improvement efforts which support our mission by striving to provide excellent service for residents. The document indicated the QAPI committee was ultimately responsible to ensure compliance with federal and state requirements and continuous improvement in quality of care and customer satisfaction. In addition the QAPI committee would implement any Performance Improvement Projects (PIP) topics indicated by data analysis. PIPs were, Implemented in accordance with CMS' protocol 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 · D2024-09-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to treat residents courteously, fairly and with dignity by using labels such as feedersto identify them, by standing over residents while assisting with their meals, and by leaving their meal at the bedside for an extended time before they were to be assisted with dining for 2 of 7 residents reviewed for dependent dining, of a total sample of 57 residents, (#130 and #54). Findings: 1. On 9/09/24 at 1:15 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A was observed bringing a meal tray into resident #130's room. She then fed the resident lunch while standing up, leaning over the resident's meal and bedside tray, while she spooned food items into the resident's mouth. CNA A was observed going in and out of several resident's rooms and at 1:26 PM, another resident asked her for assistance to get back to bed. CNA A replied, she had two feeders she needed to help, and she would help him when she finished. CNA A was then observed entering resident #130's room to assist the roommate, resident #54, with their lunch. CNA A also…
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 before2024-09-13 · 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 obtain a Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for PASARRs, of a total sample of 57 residents, (#5). Resident #5's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinsonism, dementia, bipolar disorder, depression, insomnia, and dysphagia. Review of the resident's clinical record revealed no Level I or Level II PASARR. Review of resident #5's physician orders revealed Quetiapine Fumarate 600 milligrams (mg) at bedtime for bipolar disorder with a start date of 7/16/24, Donepezil 10 mg at bedtime for dementia on 7/16/24, Mirtazapine Tablet 30 mg at bedtime for depression with a start date of 7/16/24, Lamotrigine 200 mg at bedtime for bipolar disease with a start date of 8/01/24, Lamotrigine 200 mg in the morning for bipolar disease with a start date of 8/1/24 and Aripiprazole 25mg in the morning for bipolar disorder with a start date of 9/03/24. Review 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 · D2023-01-26 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 honor choice of morning routines and schedules significant to support autonomy for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for choices from a total sample of 55 residents, (#66). Findings: A review the medical record revealed resident #66 was admitted to the facility 7/26/2019 with diagnoses including stroke and hemiplegia. Resident #66's Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 that indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Activities of daily living (ADL) showed the resident required assistance with transfers from the bed and getting dressed. The MDS admission comprehensive assessment with Assessment Reference Date of 7/28/2022 noted it was very important to the resident to choose what clothes to wear while in the facility. Resident #66's lifestyle and activity assessment evaluation dated 7/27/2022 indicated the resident formerly worked as a fashion…
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 · D2023-01-26 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 adequate personal hygiene related to nail care for 1 of 4 dependent residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) of a total sample of 55 residents, (#91). Findings: Review of resident #91's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, glaucoma, hearing loss, and dementia. Review of resident #91's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with Assessment Reference Date of 11/15/22 revealed he had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 12 which indicated he had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS showed resident #91 required extensive assistance on staff for dressing, and personal hygiene. The assessment noted no rejection of care necessary to obtain goals for his health and well-being. Review of the admission readmission Nursing Packet dated 8/9/22 included a Skin Assessment. The assessment…
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 · D2023-01-26 · 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 services and treatments to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for positioning and mobility of a total sample of 55 residents, (#112). Findings: Resident #112 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, contracture of right ankle, contracture of left ankle and contracture of muscles of left hand. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment with assessment reference date (ARD) of 12/16/22 revealed resident #112 had short-term and long-term memory problems and severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. She required extensive to total assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and did not resist care. The assessment revealed she had limited range of motion (ROM) to one side of her body for upper extremities and both sides of her body for lower extremities. A care plan for ADL assistance…
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 · D2023-01-26 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services for oxygen therapy for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care of a total sample of 55 residents, (#105). Findings: Resident #105 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently re-admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, hypertension, coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with assessment reference date 11/23/22 revealed resident #105 was cognitively intact, and had physical or verbal behaviors towards herself or others. Resident #105 was assessed as needing extensive assistance from at least two staff for bed mobility, transfers from surface to surface and dressing. She required extensive assistance from one staff for eating and personal hygiene. Resident #105 was noted to require use of oxygen and received hospice care. Resident #105 had a care plan for altered…
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 · E2021-03-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike dining environment on 1 of 2 dining rooms, (Caring Way Secure Dining Room). Findings: On 3/15/21 at 12:20 PM, observations of the secure unit dining room revealed there were no tablecloths or napkins on the tables and lunch served in plastic/disposable dishware and flatware. On 3/15/21 at 12:37 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) F served soup and crackers in plastic bowls with disposable plastic spoons. There were no napkins served with the soup. On 3/15/21 at 12:46 PM, resident #471 stood up, walked across the room and asked CNA F for a napkin to use while she ate her soup. CNA F provided the resident with 3 brown paper towels from the handwashing sink. On 3/15/21 at 12:51 PM, resident #36 was observed eating her soup while her nose was dripping. There were no napkins on the table and she wiped her dripping nose on her hand. On 3/15/21 at 1:03 PM, resident #63 had chicken noodle soup and was spitting the chicken out into her hand as there were no napkins on the table. CNA C walked by her and told…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-03-18 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
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 arrange diabetic shoe services for a diabetic resident who had a history of toe wounds for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for non-pressure wounds in a total of 47 sampled residents, (#50). Findings: Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, diabetic neuropathy with diminished sensation to her right lower extremity, left above the knee amputation (AKA), and rheumatoid arthritis. The resident's most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 14 out of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. On 3/15/21 at 12:33 PM, the resident was observed with Registered Nurse (RN) E. Resident #50 said she had a wound on her right big toe. She pointed to the tennis shoe on her right foot and said the inside of the tennis shoe had rubbed against her big toe and caused the wound. RN E indicated the resident's toe wound started as a blister,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-03-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 label or date food items in 1 of 3 Nourishment rooms, (Key West). Findings: On 3/17/21 at 11:12 AM, the Key [NAME] Nourishment Room freezer was noted with 1 gallon container of lactose free vanilla ice cream and a beef patty. The beef patty and the ice cream did not have names or dates on them. A sign posted on the freezer door read Attention Families and Staff for the safety and wellbeing of our customers everything put into this refrigerator must be 1. Labeled with the customer's name 2. Dated on the day it was put in the refrigerator 3. Items that are without a name or date will be discarded immediately 4. All items will be discarded after 3 days from the date on the item. On 3/17/21 at 11:22 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant, (CNA) B said she did not know who the food in the freezer belonged to. She added she was not aware food in the nourishment fridge/freezer needed to be labeled or dated. On 3/18/21 at 2:02 PM, the Director of Food Services said frozen items were harder to label. She said when food 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.
“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
$74,386 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $74,386 — penalty dated 2025-03-15
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ASTON HEALTH — 38 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 4.1 | -2.1 vs chain |
The other 37 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| GABRIEL LIVING CENTER, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 04/01/2003 |
| INDIAN RIVER HOLDCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/15/2023 |
| LCE PARTNERS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2021 |
| FRIEDMAN, LEOPOLD | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/15/2023 |
| GUTMAN, SAMUEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2021 |
| DAVIS EVERETT, BRENDA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/03/2025 |
| PERRI, ROSEMARIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/14/2022 |
| THACKER, TRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/05/2022 |
| PLACERES, CRYSTAL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/29/2022 |
| ASTON HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/03/2025 |
| PATEL, GAURANG | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/30/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
4 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 $3.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 26% 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 105673. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-09-13, 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.