Evergreen Nursing & Rehab Center
1115 North Wenthe, Effingham, IL 62401 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (217) 347-7121 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- it has 3 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $10,542 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-25)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (68%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 18.8% | 13.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 6.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 15.9% | 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 | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.9% | 14.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.5% | 18.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.0% | 91.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.9% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.5% | 20.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.1% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.1% | 63.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.9% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.8% | 13.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.83 | 2.02 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.65 | 2.22 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
49.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 68 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 69.6% 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 56 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 | 49.5%CMS range 38.5–62.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 7.5–15.8 | 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 | 69.6% | 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 | 66.1% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.4% | 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 | 1.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.9%CMS range 3.5–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 120 beds and averages 46.3 residents a day — about 39% occupied, or roughly 74 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.78 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.88 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 2.65 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.83 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 68% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
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.
- Actual harm · G2026-04-16 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 ensure that dialysis services were provided within the professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for appointments in a sample of 7. This resulted in R1 experiencing fluid overload and being hospitalized .Findings include:R1's Face sheet documents an admission date of 2/18/26 with the following diagnoses included: acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease with heart failure and with stage 5 chronic kidney disease, end stage renal disease and unspecified diastolic (congestive) heart failure.R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15, indicating that R1 is cognitively intact. Section O - Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs documents that R1 uses oxygen continuously and receives dialysis treatment.R1's care plan documents a focus area of Resident at risk for complications due to end stage renal disease and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-02-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to position residents properly to prevent injury for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for accidents in a sample of 11. This injury resulted in R1 sustaining a closed displaced fracture of right femoral neck. This past non-compliance occurred between 01/19/25 and 01/23/25. Findings include: R1's face sheet documents an admission date of 06/06/24 with diagnoses including: fracture of unspecified part of neck of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, Alzheimer's disease, osteoarthritis, iron deficiency, shortness of breath, nutritional deficiency, anxiety disorder, insomnia, muscle weakness, rheumatoid arthritis, pain, unsteadiness on feet, age related osteoporosis without current pathological fracture, mid cognitive impairment of uncertain or unknown etiology, vitamin D deficiency, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur, presence of right artificial hip joint, nausea with vomiting, major depressive disorder.…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-12-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and, record review the facility failed to treat residents with dignity by answering call lights in a timely manner for two residents of nine residents (R1,R6) reviewed for resident rights in the sample of nine. This failure resulted in R1 and R6 experiencing feelings of embarrassment and humiliation. Findings include: 1. R1's Face Sheet documented an admission Date of 12/3/24 and listed diagnoses including Displaced Comminuted Fracture of Shaft of Left Femur, Fibromyalgia, Polyneuropathy, Depression, and Anxiety Disorder. R1's Brief Interview for Mental Status Score (BIMS) dated 12/8/24 documented a score of 14, indicating R1 has minimal deficits in cognition. R1's Nursing Progress Note dated 12/3/24 documented, admitted a [AGE] year-old Caucasian female via ambulance from (local hospital). Brought into facility via stretcher and transferred to chair per 2 EMT's (Emergency Medical Technicians) with TTWB (Toe Touch Weight Bearing) status to LLE (Lower Left Extremity) (due to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-12-20 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 formulate a Care Plan to address a resident's pain and to provide as needed pain medication in a timely fashion for one resident of nine residents (R1) reviewed for quality of care in the sample of nine. This failure resulted in R1 experiencing unresolved excruciating pain from a femur fracture, with accompanying feelings of fear and anxiety. Findings include: R1's Face Sheet documented an admission Date of 12/3/24 and listed diagnoses including Displaced Comminuted Fracture of Shaft of Left Femur, Fibromyalgia, Polyneuropathy, Depression, and Anxiety Disorder. R1's Care Plan dated 12/9/24 did not document any problem areas nor interventions addressing pain. R1's 12/8/24 Brief Interview for Mental Status Score documented a score of 14, indicating R1 has minimal deficits in cognition. R1's December Physicians Order Sheet documented orders for hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams take one tablet every 4 hours as needed for pain, not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for 1 of 5 (R1) residents reviewed for elopements in a sample of 5. The Findings Include;R1's face sheet documents an admission date of 1/27/2026. This same document includes the following diagnosis: unspecified dementia, mild intellectual disabilities and anxiety disorder. R1's elopement assessment was completed on 5/7/26. This assessment documents that R1 is cognitively impaired/has poor decision making skills and has pertinent diagnosis, he displays behaviors indicate of an attempt to leave (body language, etc) that an elopement is forthcoming and that an elopement care plan is initiated. R1's care plan has a problem area with an initiation date of 1/27/26 as follows: resident exhibiting wandering behaviors and is at risk for injury related to impaired safety awareness. The goal for this problem is to be free from injury by next review date of 4/27/26. The interventions for this problem area are: anticipate needs of resident as much as possible, approach resident in a calm manner, calmly…
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 · D2025-10-17 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to promptly notify a residents Physician and resident representative of a medication error for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for notification of changes in the sample of 9.Findings include:R1's Face Sheet documented an admission Date of 6/6/25 and listed diagnoses including Diabetes Type 2 and Hypertension. The Face Sheet also identified V11 as R1's Power of Attorney.R1's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that R1 has no deficits in cognition.R1's Care Plan dated 8/25/25 documented a problem area, Resident is at risk for complications due to Diabetes diagnosis, with corresponding intervention, administer meds (medications) as ordered and/or sliding scale.R1's September 2025 Physicians Order Sheet documented orders for Tresiba Flextouch U-100 (insulin degludec) (long acting) insulin pen 100/u (units) per ml (milliliter) administer 30u subcutaneously at bedtime, 7pm to 10pm, and Insulin Aspart (rapid acting) u100 pen give 10 u with meals.R1's…
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 · D2025-10-17 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 administer insulin according to physicians' orders for 1 of 9 residents (R1) reviewed for medication errors in the sample of nine.The findings include:R1's Face Sheet documented an admission Date of 6/6/25 and listed Diagnoses including Diabetes Type 2 and Hypertension. The Face Sheet also identified V11 as R1's Power of Attorney.R1's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that R1 has no deficits in cognition.R1's Care Plan dated 8/25/25 documented a problem area, Resident is at risk for complications due to Diabetes Diagnosis, with corresponding intervention, Administer meds(medications) as ordered and/or sliding scale.R1's September 2025 Physicians Order Sheet documented orders for Tresiba Flextouch U-100 (insulin degludec) (long acting) insulin pen 100/u (units) per ml (milliliter) administer 30u subcutaneously at bedtime, 7pm to 10pm, and Insulin Aspart (rapid acting) u100 pen give 10 u with meals.R1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) 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 · D2025-08-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure treatments were administered as ordered by the physician for 1 of 3 (R3) residents reviewed for wounds in the sample of 28. Findings include: R3's Resident Face Sheet documents R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include anoxic brain damage, spastic hemiplegia, psychosis, major depressive disorder, peripheral vascular disease, anemia, osteoporosis, hypertension, acute kidney failure, acute myocardial infarction, dementia, and cellulitis. R3's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 07/17/2025 documents a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, indicating R3 is cognitively intact. R3's current Care Plan documents a Focus area of Problem: Resident is at risk for pressure ulcer due to activity limited. This Focus area includes interventions of Weekly skin assessment with notes Start Date 04/17/2023 .Teach or do frequent small shifts of body weight Start Date: 04/17/2023 Consider postural alignment, weight…
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 · D2025-02-25 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to place resident's call lights within reach for 3 of 11 residents (R2, R9, and R10) reviewed for call lights in a sample of 11. Findings include: 1. R2 Face Sheet documents an admission date of 02/11/25 and a discharge date of 02/17/25 with diagnoses including: aftercare following joint replacement surgery, presence of unspecified artificial hip joint, anxiety disorder, peripheral vascular disease, and pain. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating R2 has moderate cognitive impairment. R2's Care Plan documents: problem with a start date of 02/13/25: category: falls; (R2) is at risk for falls due to: recent hip surgery with an approach listed as: provide individualized toileting interventions based on needs/patterns dated 02/13/25. R2's Care Plan also documents a problem with a start date of 02/13/25 of (R2) is at risk for alteration in tissue perfusion due to: Dx…
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 · D2024-12-20 · 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 timely ADL (Activities of Daily Living) assistance for residents who are dependent on staff for two of six residents (R1, R6) reviewed for ADL care in a sample of nine. Findings include: 1. R1's Face Sheet documented an admission Date of 12/3/24 and listed diagnoses including Displaced Comminuted Fracture of Shaft of Left Femur, Fibromyalgia, Polyneuropathy, Depression, and Anxiety Disorder. R1's Brief Interview for Mental Status Score (BIMS) dated 12/8/24 documented a score of 14, indicating R1 has minimal deficits in cognition. R1's Nursing Progress Note dated 12/3/24 documented, admitted a [AGE] year-old Caucasian female via ambulance from (local hospital). Brought into facility via stretcher and transferred to chair per 2 EMT's (Emergency Medical Technicians) with TTWB (Toe Touch Weight Bearing) status to LLE (Lower Left Extremity) (due to fractured left femur). This note further stated, Resident. States she has chronic pain…
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 · D2024-10-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain aseptic technique while performing a dressing change during wound treatment for 1 (R21) of 2 residents reviewed for infection control in the sample of 23. Findings include: R21's Face Sheet documented an admission to the facility on 2/2/24 and listed diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, pressure ulcer of left heel stage 2, unspecified diastolic (congestive) heart failure and unspecified intellectual disabilities. R21's Physician Order Summary documented an order dated 10/11/2024, metronidazole 500mg. Cleanse area to left heel with NS (normal saline) or wound cleanser and apply betadine, crushed flagyl, calcium alginate and kerlix daily and as needed. R21's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents no Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score. Section C0700, under staff assessment for mental status documented memory problem, showing R21 had severe cognitive impairment. On 10/16/2024 at 2:50…
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 · F2023-09-01 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure staffing levels were sufficient to meet resident needs in a timely manner. This failure has the potential to affect all 35 residents residing in the facility. Findings Include: On 08/29/23 at 01:55 PM, R17, R7, R31, R30, R12, and R8 stated that their needs are not tended to in a timely manner by staff. All agree that the staff do the best they can with the amount of people they have working, but there just doesn't seem to be enough to tend to everyone when needed. R17 and R7 stated that staffing levels and response times seem to be worse on weekends. R12 stated that previously she has had to wait for 30 minutes for her call light to be answered, as evidence by watching the clock. R12 stated she finds that amount of time to be unsatisfactory because, when ya gotta go, ya gotta go, referring to using the restroom. R8 stated that he has had to wait 2 hours for his call light to be answered, which he too finds acceptable. R17, R7, R31, R30, R12, and R8 were all observed as being alert and oriented to person, place, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-09-01 · 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to appropriately date and label refrigerated food items and store foods to maintain food quality in the freezer. This failure has the potential to affect all 35 residents. The Findings Include: On August 29th, 2023, from 9:00 AM-9:45 AM the initial tour of the kitchen was conducted, and the following items were found in the freezer: There were items that were opened for use and not labeled with date and time of opening and were not tied up to prevent freezer burn. Two bags of undetermined food products in clear plastic bags were loosely twisted at the top and not secured to prevent freezer burn. During this initial tour the reach in refrigerator was found to have a bowl of potato salad that was not labeled with food item/date/time, drinks that were poured in glasses ready for tray assembly that were not covered, a black container that had a lid on it was not labeled with food item/date or time, and a bag of lunch meat on the bottom was not labeled. V11 (Food Service Supervisor) stated that a resident's family…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-01 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 5 of 5 (R3, R5, R7, R21, and R26) residents reviewed for immunizations in the sample of 32, received the education addressing the benefits and risks and/or had the opportunity to receive the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20 or Prevnar 20). Findings Include: 1. Review of R3's Resident Face Sheet documents an admission date to the facility as 10/29/18 and documents a birthdate indicating R3 is [AGE] years of age. Diagnoses on this same document include, but are not limited to: Chronic Kidney Disease, stage 5; Diabetes Mellitus; Cerebral Infarction; Essential Hypertension. Review of R3's Clinical Record did not indicate that R3 had received the education addressing the benefits and risks or had the opportunity to receive or decline a dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. 2. Review of R5's Resident Face Sheet documents a current admission date to the facility as 3/3/14 and birthdate indicating R5 is [AGE] years of age.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-01 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to refer 1 (R32) of 2 residents for a PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) level II screening after receiving a new mental health diagnosis in a sample of 32 residents reviewed for assessments. The Findings include: R32 was admitted to this facility on 02/28/22 with primary diagnoses to include encephalopathy, vascular dementia, and depression according to his facility face sheet. R32's OBRA I (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) dated 02/23/23 indicates he is appropriate for nursing services at this time. R32 was given a new diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent severe without psychotic features on 11/08/22, and again on 07/10/23. R32's face sheet documents a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. R32's record does not contain a referral for a PASARR II screening after either of these diagnoses were added. On 09/01/23 at 10:58 AM, when asked for R32's PASARR II referral, V14 (Social Services) stated a referral for a level II screening had not been submitted because she did not see the new diagnosis…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-01 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents with limited mobility were properly assessed for assistive devices for 1 of 1 (R135) resident reviewed for assistive devices in a sample of 32. The Findings Include: R135's resident face sheet documents an admit date of 8/25/23. This same document includes the following diagnosis: frontal lobe and executive function deficit following non traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, alcohol dependence, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post traumatic disorder, epilepsy, and cerebral infarction due to cerebral venous thrombosis, and functional quadriplegia. R135 is alert to person, place, and time. R135's care plan documents that he has a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) of 15 indicating that R135 is fully cognitively intact. A problem area in R135's care plan with a start date of 8/31/23 documents that R135 is at risk for weakness or tiredness due to late effects of Cerebral Vascular Accident. The goal is for the resident to be out of bed daily and able to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$10,542 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $10,542 — penalty dated 2025-02-25
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 HELIA HEALTHCARE — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MILLER, STEPHEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | 100% | since 02/28/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 1 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $164K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IL
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 Illinois 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 145628. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-28, 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.