Mercy Harvard Hospital Care Center
901 South Grant, Harvard, IL 60033 · Non profit - Corporation · 34 certified beds · (815) 943-2967 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (36% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Oct 2023
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 | 17.9% | 13.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.5% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 3.1% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 54.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 3.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.9% | 14.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.0% | 18.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.9% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.4% | 20.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.0% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.4% | 26.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.7% | 13.9% | 12.0% | 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.
§ 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.
58.3% 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 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 58.3% 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 24 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 58.3%CMS range 45.5–67.4 | 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 | 10.2%CMS range 6.9–15.9 | 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 | 58.3% | 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 | 54.2% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 3.7% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.83 | 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 34 beds and averages 15.7 residents a day — about 46% occupied, or roughly 18 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 6.76 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.36 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.40 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 6.24 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.98 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.48 to 2.08 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to transfer a resident (R1) with a gait belt. This applies to 1 of 3 residents reviewed for safety and supervision in the sample of 14. The findings include:R1's electronic face sheet printed on 2/18/26 showed R1 has diagnoses including but not limited to chronic hypoxic respiratory failure, chronic bronchitis, atrial fibrillation, hypotension, pleural effusion, ostomy, left hemicolectomy, and Alzheimer's dementia without behaviors R1's fall risk assessment dated [DATE] showed R1 is a high fall risk. R1's care plan dated 6/7/25 showed, (R1) is at risk for falling due to unsteady gait, impaired balance, poor activity tolerance with continuous oxygen, previous CVA (cerebrovascular accident), and weakness. On 2/17/2026 at 12:55PM, V5 (Certified Nursing Assistant) assisted R1 with transferring to the toilet. R1 stated, Please help me get up, I'm very weak today and can't breathe well. V5 then assisted R1 to stand up by lifting underneath 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 · D2026-02-18 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to check expiration dates of insulin prior to administering expired insulin to a resident (R3). This applies to 1 of 1 resident reviewed for medications in the sample of 14. The findings include:R3's Physician Orders showed an order for fast-acting ranging from 0-12 units to be given at mealtimes. On [DATE] at 1:07 PM, V4 Registered Nurse (RN) began preparing R3's insulin pen. R3's insulin pen showed a handwritten date of [DATE] denoting the date it was placed into service. Below was a handwritten expiration date, Exp 1/29. V4 prepared this fast acting insulin pen and injected 4 units of insulin into R3's right lower abdomen. V4 stated the date of [DATE] was the date the pen was opened and first used. On [DATE] at 10:27 AM, V3 Director of Nursing (DON) stated when nursing staff open a new insulin pen they should write on the pen the date it was opened, and per manufacturers instructions, write the expiration date. V3 stated the expiration…
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 before2026-02-18 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene and glove changes while providing incontinence care and colostomy care to a resident (R1). This applies to 1 of 2 residents reviewed for incontinence care in the sample of 14.The findings include:R1's electronic face sheet printed on 2/18/26 showed R1 has diagnoses including but not limited to chronic hypoxic respiratory failure, chronic bronchitis, atrial fibrillation, hypotension, pleural effusion, ostomy, left hemicolectomy, and Alzheimer's dementia without behaviors. R1's care plan dated 6/4/25 showed, (R1) is occasionally incontinent of urine. Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode . On 2/17/2026 at 12:55 PM, V5 (Certified Nursing Assistant) provided urinary incontinent care and colostomy care to R1. V5 applied clean gloves, emptied R1's colostomy bag and cleaned around R1's colostomy, removed R1's soiled incontinence brief and pants, applied clean pants and a clean incontinence brief to R1, removed R1's surgical mask from her face, applied a clean shirt, provided…
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 · Fcited before2024-04-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the water system was flushed to prevent Legionnaire disease in the water. This applies to all 16 resident residing in the facility. The findings include: The facility's Long-Term Care Facility Application For Medicare and Medicaid (CMS-671) dated 4/8/24 shows a facility census of 16. On 04/09/24 at 10:15 AM, V5 Facility Manager said the facility had a recent low level positive for bacteria on the Legionella testing. V5 said the positive water sample came from an unoccupied resident room and was found during quarterly testing of dead leg areas (water not used frequently). V5 said the water supply comes from the city and is chlorinated. V5 said the dead leg areas are to be flushed daily to prevent legionnaires in the water. V5 said the testing was done as part of preventative maintenance. V5 said since the positive result, they have increased vigilance of flushing the positive room as recommended by the water testing company and are…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of dysphagia was supervised and failed to ensure the recommended swallowing strategies were implemented. This applies to 1 of 8 residents (R11) reviewed for safety. The findings include: R11's face sheet shows she is a [AGE] year old female with diagnoses including aphasia, oropharyngeal dysphasia, type 2 diabetes, progressive supranuclear palsy. R11's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] shows she requires supervision with eating. R11's Swallowing/Feeding Guideline dated July 12, 2022 documents swallowing supervision-periodic, strategies: eat/feed slowly, small bites/sips, one at a time, check mouth for pocketing of food on the right, check mouth for pocketing on left, chew thoroughly, moisten solids. R11's Speech Language Pathology Quarterly Screen dated 3/13/23 documents swallowing ability: dysphagia, liquids are thickened to nectar consistency, decrease in function, per nursing interview .(R11) with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-09 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident's received significant medications as ordered by the physician. This applies to 1 of 6 residents (R5) reviewed for medication administration in the sample of 8. The findings include: On April 8, 2024 at 9:08 AM, R5 was lying in bed. There was a small round yellow pill lying on top of her lap on the blanket. She stated, the nurse just gave her, her morning medications. On April 8, 2024 at 9:20 AM, V4 Registered Nurse (RN) stated, she just gave R5 her morning medications. This surveyor showed her the small round yellow pill on R5's blanket. V4 RN took the pill and confirmed the pill was her morning dose of eliquis (blood thinner). She must have dropped it. R5's medication administration report for April 8, 2024 shows, apixaban (eliquis) tablet 2.5 mg (miligrams), 2 times daily. The medication was signed out as given on April 8, 2024 at 9:04 AM. R5's medical record did not show she could self administer her medications. The facility's acute medication administration dated March 27, 2023 shows,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-30 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident was free of abuse which applies to 1 of 5 residents (R1) reviewed for abuse in a sample of 5. The findings include: R1's undated Face Sheet showed R1 is a [AGE] year old male resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which include: Cerebral Palsy. On 10/30/23 at 11:00 AM, V4 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated on 10/13/23 she was getting R1 up for breakfast. V4 asked V3 CNA to assist her with getting R1 into the wheelchair. V3 appeared annoyed she was asked to help. V4 stated during the transfer R1 reached over to hold V3's hand. V3 pulled her hand away and told R1 to not pinch her. V3 then slapped R1's hand 3 times which was loud enough to here the slaps. V4 stated R1 was upset and shook his finger at V3. On 10/20/23 at 11:50 AM, V12 Social Services assisted with interviewing R1 due to R1's communication deficits. V12 used yes/no questions, hand gestures, and a touch alphabet sheet to ask if R1 remembered the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-07 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 pressure related skin changes were reported and assessed, and interventions were implemented for 1 of 3 residents (R5) in the sample of 11 reviewed for pressure injuries. The findings include: R5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] shows R5 is cognitively intact, requires extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers, and is at risk of developing pressure ulcers/injuries. R5's current care plan provided by the facility showing an admission date of 1/23/23 shows R5's diagnoses include, but are not limited to, protein malnutrition, failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and hypothyroidism. R5's same care plan shows nursing is to observe for signs of skin irritation and/or breakdown and report to the physician, nursing is to perform and document skin check, notify the physician and treatment team of any integumentary (skin) changes, encourage proper positioning and relief on pressure points and time off her…
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 · D2023-06-07 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure oxygen equipment was changed weekly for 1 of 2 residents (R7) reviewed for oxygen administration in the sample of 11. The findings include: On 06/05/23 at 10:04 AM, R7 was lying in her bed with oxygen flowing through a nasal cannula. R7's oxygen tubing nor humidification bottle were dated. On 06/07/23 at 10:07 AM, V8, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), said oxygen tubing and the humidified water are supposed to be changed weekly. The facility's Oxygen Concentrator Policy/Procedure, last reviewed 2/23, shows the oxygen tubing is to be changed weekly. The facility was unable to provide documentation to show when R7's oxygen tubing and humidified water bottle was last changed.
“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 MERCYHEALTH SYSTEM — 3 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 2 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MERCY HEALTH CORPORATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2016 |
| AREVALO, CARLOS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/16/2024 |
| BEA, JAVON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| BUDD, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| GOELZER, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| JOST, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/18/2017 |
| POOL, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| SCHACK, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/22/2017 |
| SYVERSON, DAVE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| BENNING, JOANNA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/15/2015 |
| BRINKERHOFF, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/19/2024 |
| CRANLEY, EDWARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/30/2014 |
| DORSEY, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/29/2025 |
| DUNPHY-ALEXANDER, SHANNON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| HALLATT, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2012 |
| KILLPACK, TYLER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/01/2023 |
| OLIA, ALI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2021 |
| OLSON, BRADLEY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/25/2023 |
| SANKEY, KARA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| SCACCIA, KIMBERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/23/2020 |
| UDY, LADD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/10/2018 |
| WHITAKER, AMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| KUS, KATHERINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2011 |
| PALCHES, KATHI | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/08/1999 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
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 146014. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-18, 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.