Aperion Care Fox River
355 Raymond Street, Elgin, IL 60120 · For profit - Corporation · 94 certified beds · (847) 697-6636 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 0.9% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 6.3% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 99.6% | 54.2% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 1.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 1.9% | 14.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 0.0% | 18.3% | 18.9% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 91.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.7% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.1% | 20.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 0.0% | 21.7% | 17.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.9% | 63.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.1% | 26.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.1% | 13.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.27 | 2.02 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.48 | 2.22 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
38.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 61 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 67 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 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 38.9%CMS range 27.4–50.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.0%CMS range 8.6–16.8 | 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 | 59.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 61.2% | 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 | 59.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 9.3%CMS range 6.7–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.47 | 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 94 beds and averages 82.1 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.17 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.09 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.90 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 2.79 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.32 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.22 to 0.77 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-13 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop control measures for identified internal factors that increase the risk of Legionella growth and failed to have ways to intervene when control measures were not met. The facility also failed to follow their policy for Enhanced Barrier Precautions and hand hygiene. This applies to all 81 residents residing in the facility. The findings include: 1. The facility's Long-Term Facility Application for Medicare and Medicaid dated March 10, 2025, showed the facility census was 81. On March 12, 2025, at 8:32 AM, V6 (Maintenance Director) said for the facility's water management plan for Legionella, V6 performs weekly faucet flushes, periodic eye wash station flushes, daily hot water tank temperature checks, and they clean the ice machine every two weeks. V6 said he does not test for chlorine levels in the water. On March 12, 2025, at 9:11 AM, V1 (Administrator) said the facility's policy titled Water Management Program for Prevention of Legionella Growth is the facility's water management plan for Legionella.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-13 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement fall interventions for a resident that had a history of a fall. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R68) reviewed for falls in the sample of 18. The findings include: Care Plan, revised February 25, 2024, shows R68's diagnoses included right hip fracture, history of falls, dementia, osteoarthritis, osteopenia. The care plan shows R68 was at risk for falls related to impaired cognition, impaired mobility, and need to for assistance with ADLs (Activities of Daily Living.) The care plan shows R68 had a history of fall at the facility resulting in a right femur fracture. Interventions to prevent further falls include use of a low bed, floor mat to be placed next to the bed while R68 is in bed, and a bed mobility alarm to be in place while R68 is in bed. The care plan shows R68 was moved to a room closer to the nursing station for supervision. Interdisciplinary Team Fall Committee Meeting Note, dated 12/13/24, shows R68 fell when transferring herself and new interventions put into place after her fall…
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 F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 identify and provide interventions for tube feeding intolerance and fluid needs, that meet the nutritional needs of a resident dependent on enteral feeding in accordance with the facility policy. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R28) reviewed for nutrition in the sample of 18. The findings include: R28's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) showed R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including Wernicke's encephalopathy, attention to gastrostomy, dementia unspecified, gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis, thiamine deficiency, pressure ulcer of the sacrum and right buttocks and multiple contractures of the upper and lower extremities. R28 physician orders showed R28 was NPO (nothing by mouth). Tube feeding orders initiated on January 1, 2025, showed Jevity 1.2, 500 ml (milliliter) bolus every shift, scheduled for administration at 12 midnight, 08:00 AM and 4:00 PM. V10 (Dietitian) initial assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-05-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to properly label, date, seal, and store food items in the kitchen. This applies to all residents that receive oral nutrition and foods prepared in the facility kitchen. Findings include: The facility's Longterm-Care Facility Application for Medicare and Medicaid (Form CMS-Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-671) dated 5/14/24 documents that the total census was 73 residents. On 5/16/24 at 12:14 AM, V2 (DON-Director of Nursing) stated, there are zero NPO (Nothing by Mouth) residents that do not eat from the facility kitchen. On 5/14/24 starting at 8:35 AM, the facility kitchen was toured in the presence of V26 (Dietary Manager) and the following was found: In the walk-in freezer: 2 boxes of beef liver 10 pounds each with a receiving date of 2/28/2020 and no expiration date. V26 (Dietary Manager) & V29 (Cook) stated, those beef [NAME] are expired. In the 'Dry Storage Room': 1. A 32 ounce can of Pumpkin pulp dated as 'best by [DATE]'.…
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 before2024-05-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess a dependent resident's transferring status, failed to safely use a transfer device, and safely assist residents with positioning when in wheelchairs. This applies to 4 of 4 (R41, R49, R57, and R275) residents reviewed for accidents and hazards in sample of 21. Findings include: 1. The EMR (Electronic Medical Record) showed R41 had multiple diagnoses including hemiplegia affecting the right side following a cerebral infarction, osteoporosis, seizures, and generalized osteoarthritis. R41's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 05/01/2024 showed she was severely cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff for transfers and bed mobility. On 05/14/2024 at 9:40 AM, R41 was in the unit's common area sitting in her high-back wheelchair which only had the left footrest attached. R41 was leaning on the right side of the wheelchair resting her head on the right side handrest and R41's feet were resting on the left footrest. R41 appeared fatigued…
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 · D2024-05-17 · 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 provide correct-sized wheelchairs and wheelchair devices for residents who require the use of a wheelchair. The facility also failed to provide a toilet riser to accommodate a resident's toileting needs. This applies to 2 out of 2 (R49 and R41) residents reviewed for assistive devices in a sample of 21. Findings include: 1. The EMR (Electronic Medical Record) showed R49 had multiple diagnoses including weakness, difficulty in walking, unsteadiness on feet, generalized osteoarthritis, history of falls, and vascular dementia. The EMR continued to show R49 was 76 inches tall and weighed 147 pounds. R49's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 05/06/2024 showed he required the use of a manual wheelchair mobility device and required substantial to maximal assistance from staff for toileting transfers. On 05/14/2024 at 10:03 AM, R49 was in his room sitting in his wheelchair. R49 appeared uncomfortable in his wheelchair, R49 said he was too tall. R49 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-17 · 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 assist residents needing assistance with eating during meal service. This applies to 2 of 5 residents (R40 and R44) reviewed for activities of daily living when eating in a sample of 21. The findings include: 1. According to the Electronic Health Record (EHR) R44 has diagnoses including hypertensive heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer's Disease, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed R44's cognition was severely impaired and was dependent on staff for eating, which means helper does ALL of the effort. A Care Plan dated 04/30/2024 shows staff provides R44 with extensive assistance with eating. The care plan was updated on 05/14/2024, after observations of resident eating with fingers, to include Resident has been observed to be eating with her hands despite staff's encouragement and health teachings to use the utensils. On 05/14/24 at 12:26 PM, R44 was sitting in the dining room during…
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 · D2024-05-17 · 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 evaluate and treat residents with skin conditions. The facility also failed to ensure a resident with an implanted pacemaker had the pacemaker transmitter functioning at the bedside and failed to ensure all staff were aware of the residents who had a pacemaker. This applies to 3 of 3 residents (R44, R5, R35) reviewed for quality of care in a sample of 21. The findings include: 1. R44's face sheet showed R44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertensive heart disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, dementia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, anemia, osteoarthritis, and Alzheimer's disease. R44's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment showed R44 had severe cognitive impairment. R44's POS (Physician Order Sheet) showed an order on May 15, 2024 (during the survey) for Triamcinolone 0.1% ointment apply to bilateral arms and back twice daily for 10 days. The POS also showed an order for skin check…
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 · D2024-05-17 · 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
Based on Observation, Interview and Record Review the facility failed to ensure the resident received respiratory care and services that is in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 of 2 residents (R7 and R16) reviewed for oxygen therapy in the sample of 21. Findings include: 1. On 5/14/24 at 9:30 AM, observed R7 sitting in the activity room, using oxygen via nasal cannula at 2 lpm (liters per minute) from an oxygen cylinder. Observed oxygen cylinder was empty. On 5/14/24 at 10:45 AM, V12 (CNA- Certified Nursing Assistant) took R7 to the toilet along with the same empty oxygen cylinder. V12 stated, oxygen cylinder was empty. 2. On 5/14/24 at 10:15 AM, observed R16's CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) mask is not in use and is lying on his bed next to his pillow and is not contained in a bag. R16 is using oxygen via nasal cannula. On 5/15/24 at 10:10 AM, the CPAP mask is on the bed next to his right hand and is not contained in a bag. R16 is using oxygen via nasal cannula. On 5/15/24 at 11:00 AM, the CPAP mask is on the floor and is not contained in a bag.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-04-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess and implement interventions for residents at risk for elopement. This applies to 5 of 5 residents (R6, R30, R53, R57 and R58) reviewed for wandering in a sample of 16. The findings include: 1. Face sheet, dated 4/19/23, shows R53's diagnoses include dementia. MDSs (Minimum Data Sets), dated 2/28/23, 11/28/22, 8/30/22, all show R53's cognition was severely compromised and R53 was not identified as having wandering behaviors. Dementia care plan, dated 2/28/23, shows R53 wanders into other residents rooms. The care plan shows R53 does not seek facility exits, does not intend on leaving the facility, and is residing on a secure special care wing of the facility. Social Service Note, dated 11/28/22 and 2/27/23, show R53 continued to be observed wandering in other residents rooms but he is easily redirected. R53 did not seek the exits and he did not intend on leaving this facility. R53 was ambulatory without any assistive…
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 APERION CARE — 33 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 | 1.9 | +3.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 2.0 | +3.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 1.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| GOLDFARB, BRIAN | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 07/01/2023 |
| GEIGEL, KATHERINE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| LAPTAPON, MARIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| SPECTOR, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| ULBERT, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| APERION CARE INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| LAGTAPON, ENRICO GREGARIO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| SHROFF, PRANAV KUMAR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| TUROFSKY, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| WILHELM, NAFTALI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| BERKOWITZ, DAVID | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/25/2025 |
| MEYSTEL, YOSEF | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/25/2025 |
| APERION CARE EXEC HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| APERION CONSULTING, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| CURIS SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| DAVID A BERKOWITZ DELTA TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| FOX PROP, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/25/2025 |
| JOSHUA HOFFMAN TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| YOSEF MEYSTEL DECLARATION OF TR OF YOSEF MEYSTEL TTEE | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| YOSEF MEYSTEL DELTA TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| FRANKEL, FREDERICK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| SEITLER, DOVID | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $780K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in 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 145447. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-13, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.