Lincolnwood Place
7000 North McCormick Blvd., Lincolnwood, IL 60645 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 40 certified beds · (847) 673-7166 Medicare only — no Medicaid
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)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $42,026 in federal fines (most recent 2024-10-01)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 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 | 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 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 | 21.7% | 13.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.7% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 6.9% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.0% | 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 | 2.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.5% | 18.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.0% | 91.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.1% | 20.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.5% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.5% | 63.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.4% | 26.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.1% | 13.9% | 12.0% | typical |
‡ 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.
60.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 164 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 35.8% 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 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 71% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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 | 60.5%CMS range 53.3–69.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.1%CMS range 6.2–13.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 35.8% | 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 | 44.8% | 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 | 19.4% | 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 | 27.6% | 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 | 96.9% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 0.9% | 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 | 4.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.5%CMS range 4.6–12.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.19 | 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 40 beds and averages 30.5 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.15 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.22 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.74 to 1.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-10-01 · 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 maintain resident safety during a mechanical lift transfer, failed to ensure the mechanical lift sling was correctly applied during transfers, and failed to use a two person assist during a mechanical lift transfer. This affected one resident (R1) of three residents reviewed for safety and mechanical lift transfer. This failure resulted in R1 sliding from mechanical lift sling, sustaining a 3cm (centimeter) laceration to the posterior scalp, being sent to the local hospital where 3 staples were required to close the laceration. Findings Include: Facility reported incident with date of occurrence of 8/27/24, reads in part: R1 had a witnessed fall during transfer from bed to wheelchair and was sent to ER (Emergency Room) for further evaluation. (R1) returned to facility with all diagnostic test negative for injury but required 3 stapled to back of head. Conclusion: on 8/27/24 at 1005, (R1) had a witnessed fall from mechanical lift. (R1) was placed into mechanical lift with sling, Agency CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-26 · 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 transfer a resident using a mechanical lift to ensure resident safety. This failure applied to one (R1) of three residents reviewed for resident injury and resulted in R1 sustaining a laceration to the leg while being transferred from wheelchair to bed; R1 required emergent hospital transfer and treatment with 12 sutures. Findings include: R1 is an [AGE] year-old woman with a medical history that includes but is not limited to generalized weakness, lymphedema with +4 edema present, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease. Review of R1's medical record documents that R1 is alert, able to make her needs known with forgetfulness. R1's MDS (Minimum Data Assessment) dated 12/18/23 documents that R1 has a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 6 (severe cognitive impairment) and uses a manual wheelchair/walker. It is also documented that R1 has lower extremity impairment on both sides. Mobility and transfer assistance required is sit 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-11-21 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the food storage policy by not removing lettuce that appeared rotten and waterlogged and not labeling, dating, and monitoring refrigerated foods. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all 31 residents who consume food prepared in the facility's kitchen.On 11/19/2025 at 9:55 AM, the second refrigerator contained a single-serve garden salad on a transparent plate that was not covered. Multiple single-serve red gelatin portions were uncovered on a large tray with no date. Two individual transparent containers of ranch dressing were covered but had no date. V6 (Director of Dining Services) stated the gelatin was poured the day before on 11/18/2025 and that all foods placed in the refrigerator should be covered and labeled. V6 stated he was unsure when the ranch dressing was placed in the refrigerator.On 11/19/2025 at 9:55 AM, V6 stated that the garden salad was prepared the day before and that both the garden salad and the gelatin should not have been left in the refrigerator uncovered 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 · Dcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 follow Medication Administration Policy by not labelling a multi-dose jar of petroleum jelly with the open date. This failure affected 1 resident (R35) of 12 reviewed for medications.Findings include:On 11-19-25 at 8:10 AM, surveyor observed V3 (Registered Nurse) apply petroleum from R35s jar without an open date. Surveyor and V3 verified there was not an open date on the jar.On 11-19-25 at 8:25 AM, V3 (Registered Nurse) said the nurse who opens the jar is responsible for writing the open date. V3 said significance of the open date is so staff can refer to how long the medication is good for.On 11-19-25 at 12:58 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said the significance of an open date allows staff to know when the medication expires. The staff who opens the medication is responsible for labelling the open date. V2 said all nurses are responsible for checking for open dates on multi-dose medications.Medication Administration Policy revised 2-23-24 documents: When opening a multi-dose container, the date shall be…
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 before2024-12-13 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the food storage policy by not labeling food products with (cook or open) dates. This failure has the potential to affect 36 residents with oral diets. Findings include: On 12/10/24 at 9:56 AM, Surveyor and V6 (Chef) noted 1 metal pan of cooked mixed vegetables without a date, 1 metal pan of meat sauce without a label or date, 1 metal pan of marinara without a label or date, 1 metal pan of barbeque sauce without a label or date, and 1 metal pan of beef base without a label or date, 7 trays of uncooked tilapia without a label or date, 1 pan of lasagna without a label or date, 1 tray of dinner rolls without a label or date, 1 open bag of tortellini without a label or date, 1 open bag of tater tots without a label or date, 1 open bag of sweet potato fries without a label or date, 1 open bag of raisin bran without a label or date, and 1 open bag of wheat cereal without a label or date. Surveyor noted V6 immediately labeling numerous food items with dates. On 12/11/24 at 9:45 AM, V6 (Chef) said food labels…
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 before2024-12-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 monitor the temperature of two of two medication refrigerators reviewed for medication storage. This failure has the potential to affect six of six Residents (R2, R3, R8, R14, R17, and R182) reviewed for medication storage in a sample of 14 residents. Findings include: On 12/11/24 at 9:30am, during a tour of the medication storage room, surveyor observed log A (Patient medication fridge) with a missing temperature date for 12/2/24, 12/3/24 and 12/10/24. Log B (House stock control substance fridge) was also missing temperature on 12/11/24. Surveyor, V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) and V13 (Registered Nurse/ RN) also observed medications for six residents in the fridge. (R2, R3, R8, R14, R17, and R182). On 12/11/24 at 9:30am, both V2 (DON) and V13 (RN) stated that, the night shift is responsible for checking the refrigerator at the end of the shift in the morning before leaving. Both stated that the temperature should have been checked. V2 stated that if the fridge is not in the right temperature it can affect 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 · Dcited before2024-12-13 · 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 adequately supervise a high fall risk resident for one of four residents (R26) reviewed for accidents in the sample of 14. Findings include: On 12/10/2024 at 10:09AM during facility rounds, V15 (Certified Nursing Assistant) was observed coming out of R26's room and R26 was observed sitting on the toilet with R26's wheelchair in front of her with no staff present. On 12/10/2024 at 10:15AM during interview with V15, V15 stated that he went out of R26's room because he needs to grab another pair of gloves because what he had was the wrong size. V15 stated that he does not usually leave the resident but R26 is not a fall risk so he trusts R26 will not fall. On 12/12/2024 at 9:30AM during interview with V2 (Interim Director of Nursing), V2 stated that staff is expected to gather all their needed supplies before proceeding to resident's room and before starting to provide care to any resident. V2 stated that staff cannot leave any resident unattended until the task is completed. V2 also stated that if the resident…
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 · D2024-12-13 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop 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 administer immunizations to 3 of 5 residents (R15, R28 and R132) reviewed for immunization in a sample of 14 residents. Findings include: During record review on 12/12/24 at 11:00am, R15's record was noted with a consent for influenza dated 11/22/24. The vaccine was not administered as of 12/11/24. R28 consented to pneumococcal vaccine on 11/13/24 and the vaccine was not administered as of 12/11/24 and R132 consented for influenza on 12/4/24 and did not receive the vaccine as of 12/11/24. The surveyor, V2(Director of Nursing/DON) and V13(Registered Nurse/RN) observed a house stock of 20 pre-filled (0.5ml (millimeter)) Influenza Vac Adjuvanted Fluad ([AGE] years of age and older) in the fridge during medication storage inspection. On 12/11/24 at 11:30am, Both V2(DON) and V4(infection Prevention) stated that the vaccines should have been given. V2 stated that the nurse who took the consent should have given the vaccines. V2 stated that residents'…
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 · F2023-11-09 · 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 facility failed to follow isolation procedures and usage of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) for one (R5) resident. This failure has a potential to affect entire facility. Findings include: On 11/06/2023 at 9:42 AM, V1 (Administrator) stated that facility census is 26 at this time. On 11/06/23 at 12:09 PM, Surveyor observed V7 (Housekeeper) cleaning room [ROOM NUMBER], wearing mask and gloves, no gown. Visible contact isolation precaution sign posted and Personal Protective Equipment cart outside of the room [ROOM NUMBER] noticed. On 11/06/23 at 12:09 PM, Surveyor observed V8 (Maintenance staff) walking into room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom with no Personal Protective Equipment, and no hand hygiene, before or after room entrance. On 11/06/2023 at 12:14 PM, Surveyor interviewed V7 who related the following in summary but non-verbatim: I just cleaned room [ROOM NUMBER]. This room is on contact isolation precautions, so I should wear a mask, and wash my hands before…
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
$42,026 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $31,993 — penalty dated 2024-10-01
- $10,033 — penalty dated 2024-05-26
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 SENIOR LIFESTYLE — 4 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 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 3 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCRC OPS MB1-T LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/03/2014 |
| J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| THE VANGUARD GROUP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| VENTAS MS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| VENTAS SSL, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| VENTAS, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| VTR SHI TRS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| VTR SHI VENTURE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
| FUESZ, AUTUMN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/15/2017 |
| BAKER, DANA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| CUMMINGS, CHRISTIAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| FRY, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| SMITH, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| WOOD, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| SL LINCOLNWOOD LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2014 |
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.
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Illinois Medicaid page for homes that do.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 145786. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-21, 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.