Terraces At The Clare
55 East Pearson, Chicago, IL 60611 · For profit - Individual · 50 certified beds · (312) 784-8100 Medicare only — no Medicaid
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 harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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) | 5 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 4.8% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.1% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.3% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 12.9% | 54.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.4% | 18.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 91.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 16.3% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.2% | 20.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.4% | 21.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.2% | 63.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.8% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.8% | 13.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.44 | 2.02 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.83 | 2.22 | 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.
70.9% 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 482 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.2% 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 173 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 0.99 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 97% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 70.9%CMS range 65.9–74.2 | 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 | 8.4%CMS range 6.5–10.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better 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 | 68.2% | 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 | 64.2% | 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 | 60.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 94.9% | 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 | 99.5% | 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 | 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 | 7.4%CMS range 5.1–9.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.74 | 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 50 beds and averages 45.2 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.96 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.94 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.65 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.15 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.03 to 1.71 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% 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 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-31 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free of physical restraints. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure one (R1) of three residents reviewed for restraints was free of physical restraints unless medically necessary in the sample of three. R1 was physically restrained with a blanket across the chest that was then tied to the frame of R1's bed.Findings include: Facility's final incident report of 5.24.2026, documents, in part: At approximately 5:45 am on 5.19.2026, a first shift CNA observed that the top left corner of the resident's blanket had been tied to the bed frame near the bed enabler closet to the hallway. The CNA informed the nurse. At approximately 6:15 pm, on 5.19.2026, the third shift CNA returned the DON's calls and texts and spoke with both the DON and Administrator. The CNA stated that she had secured the resident's blanket to the bed in an effort to prevent the resident from getting up independently and potentially falling.…
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 · F2025-05-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure for preventing foodborne illnesses to ensure foods in the walk-in coolers were properly labeled and dated when they were opened and prepared and discarded on the best by date. The facility also failed to ensure kitchen staff was wearing facial hair/beard restraint while in the kitchen and failed to ensure potentially hazardous refrigerated foods were stored at the appropriate temperatures. These failures have the potential to affect 47 residents in the facility who are receiving oral diet. Findings Include: On 4/29/25 at 10:47 AM, during the initial tour in the kitchen (17th floor) with V26 (Chef), surveyor observed the main walk-in cooler external thermometer read 49 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and inside thermometer read 47 degrees F. V26 stated a contracted worker will be coming in to fix the cooler because the thermometers are faulty. Inside the main walk-in cooler was found a container of slices of liver with no label. V26 stated it will be served that day. Inside 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 · F2025-05-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to assess, ientify, and involve the local public health department to determine if their water management plan was adequate to prevent the growth of Legionella or other opportunistic waterborne pathogens. This failure affects five (R22, R28, R30, R204, and R209) out of a total sample of twelve residents reviewed and potentially affects all forty-eight residents residing in the facility. Findings: On 5/1/25 at 10:30 AM, V8 (Director of Plant Operations) stated that the expansion tank does not have enough air pressure and this could possibly cause growth of Legionella, and that the company will be coming next week Friday 5/9/25 to fix the tank, and the mixing valve will be fixed next week Monday or Tuesday 5/5/25 or 5/6/25. On 5/1/25 at 11:50 AM, V14 (Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist) stated that when she became aware of the first legionella results, she notified the physician, family members, and staff to monitor the residents for respiratory symptoms. V14 was not sure of the date. She…
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 · F2025-05-02 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to conduct a thorough risk assessment to identify why opportunistic waterborne Legionella could grow and spread in the facility water. This failure affects five (R22, R28, R30, R204, and R209) out of a total sample of twelve residents reviewed and potentially affects all forty-eight residents residing in the facility. Findings: On 4/30/25 at 10:39 AM, V8 (Director of Plant Operations) stated that he has been in this facility for almost two years and the facility checks for legionella quarterly. The testing was done on 3/26/25 and 4/18/25 with positive result in five rooms. He also stated that the facility performs daily flushing twice a day on the affected rooms, obtains water temperature log in one room weekly on each floor, and provided water filters for the sink. At 2:35 PM V8 stated that the facility has been positive with Legionella since February 2023 before he joined the facility. V8 said the facility has been cleaning the mixing…
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 · D2025-05-02 · 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 closely monitor a resident receiving continuous oxygen and failed to follow physician's order to ensure a resident was receiving the correct oxygen flow rate for one (R31) out of two residents reviewed for oxygen use in the final sample of 12. Findings Include: On 4/29/25 at 12:03 PM, R31 was sitting on her wheelchair alert and able to verbalize needs. R31 was observed using oxygen (O2) via nasal cannula (NC) and her oxygen concentrator flow rate was set to 2 liters per minute (LPM). R31's oxygen concentrator was located behind her wheelchair and not within R31's reach. R31 stated that somebody comes in in the morning and checks her oxygen. R31 stated she does not know how to change her oxygen setting. R31 stated, I don't even know why I'm on it. The other nurse told me I needed it. Some nurses tell me I don't need it. R31 stated she never touches the dial on the oxygen concentrator because the nurses do it for her and that she can't…
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 before2025-05-02 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 maintain accurate record of usage and accountability for 1 resident (R35) who receives controlled substances from 1 of 2 inspected medication carts. Findings Include: On 4/29/25 at 12:29 PM, a narcotic reconciliation count conducted with V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) for the tenth floor's medication cart. Observed R35's Diazepam 2 milligrams (mg) medication administration blister pack had 39 half tablets in the card. The count on R35's CONTROLLED DRUG RECEIPT/RECORD/DISPOSITION FORM documents 60 half tablets were received on 1/30/25 last entry date showed 4/29/25 at 2:30 AM with 40 tablets remaining. V2 stated the count was incorrect. On 4/30/25 at 2:14 PM, V2 (DON) stated that V9 (Registered Nurse) administered one dose of the Diazepam to R35. V2 stated when administered, the nurse will have to sign off that it was given on the controlled substance accountability form. V2 stated all controlled substances should be accounted for. V2 stated two nurses counting the narcotics at the beginning and end of shift. 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 · D2025-03-13 · 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 observation, interviews and records review the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of the alleged injuries of unknown source to rule out physical abuse. This failure affected 1 (R1) out of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: R1 subject of the incident is [AGE] years old currently a resident of facility. R1 was initially admitted on [DATE] with medical diagnosis that includes severe dementia, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery. R1's BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score is 1 out of 15, indicating R1's cognition is severely impaired. On 03/12/2025 at 11:17 AM, R1 was seen sitting inside her room. R1 was alert, unable to respond to questions within topic. R1 responded to all questions by saying okay. V3 (Registered Nurse) went inside R1's room to assess both arms and hands of R1. R1's left wrist and right hand noted to have small bruises and left eye that shows bruising and redness. V3 stated that bruising and redness on R1's left eye was there…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of records and interviews the facility failed to maintain accurate and readily available resident records related to abuse investigation. This failure affected one resident (R1) out of 3 residents reviewed. Findings include: R1 subject of the incident is [AGE] years old currently a resident of facility. R1 was initially admitted on [DATE] with medical diagnosis that includes severe dementia, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery. R1 cognition is severely impaired with BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) of 1. R1 was investigated by the facility related to bruises resident sustained that was identified on 02/04/2025. On 03/12/2025 at 11:17 AM, R1 was seen sitting inside her room. R1 was alert, unable to respond to questions within topic. Facility Final Report of R1's incident dated 02/04/2025 documents the following: Staff denies witnessing any incident during care but did mention that resident gets very stiff and resistant during transfer which might cause R1 to accidentally…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-11 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff signed the Narcotic Shift Count Log Sheet at the beginning of the shift and at the end of the shift and failed to ensure staff did not sign the Narcotic Shift Count Log Sheet before the end of the shift. These failures affected 5 residents (R7, R29, R30, R50 and R51) reviewed for controlled medications in the total sample of 34 residents. Findings include: On 04/08/2024 at 11:02am during the medication cart observation with V3 (Licensed Practice Nurse) of the 10th floor medication cart, the 10th floor 04/2024 Narcotic Shift Count Log Sheet noted with missing signatures on shift 7A (am) - 7P (pm) columns 'ON' and 'OFF' on DATE: 3. This was pointed out to V3 (Licensed Practice Nurse). V3 stated whoever came in on 04/03/2024 did not sign the narc (narcotic) sheet. We (staff) are supposed to sign after the count. This surveyor requested V3 to provide a copy of the 10th floor 04/2024 Narcotic Shift Count Log Sheet. On 04/08/2024…
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 · D2023-10-14 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed ensure treatment orders were in place for a resident with chronic wounds; failed to provide necessary care and services to promote wound healing; failed to ensure assessments are accurate; and failed to inform doctor of significant change within 24 hours per policy. These failures apply to 1 of 4 residents (R2) reviewed for wound management. Findings include: R2 is an [AGE] year old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: Bilateral Wound Debridement with Biopsy (8/12/23), Chronic Venous Hypertension (Idiopathic) with ulcer and inflammation of bilateral extremity, Cellulitis of right lower limb, Cellulitis of left lower limb, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Cerebrovascular Disease, Idiopathic Chronic Gout, Chronic Kidney Disease stage 3B, Hypoparathyroidism, Vitamin D Deficiency, Weakness, Muscle weakness, Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease, Bell's Palsy, Localized edema, Obesity, Gastro-esophageal Reflux Disease without…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 LIFE CARE SERVICES — 43 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE CLARE PARTNERS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/20/2019 |
| LCS THE CLARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/20/2019 |
| PEARSON STREET PARTNERS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/20/2019 |
| LCS MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 12/20/2019 |
| MCCARTHY GROUP LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| BIRD, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 02/15/2024 |
| LAHEY, DANIEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 12/20/2019 |
| SHAW, GELYNNA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 02/15/2024 |
| UHLEMANN, BRIDGETTE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 02/15/2024 |
| VICTOR, JASON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/20/2019 |
| RUSBOLDT, MONICA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/20/2019 |
| LIFE CARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/11/2025 |
| LINDQUIST, LEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/15/2024 |
| STEINFELD, LIZA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 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.
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 IL
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Illinois Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 146141. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-02, 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.