Florence Nursing Home
546 East Grant Highway, Marengo, IL 60152 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 56 certified beds · (815) 568-8322 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 | 13.3% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 12.8% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 33.6% | 54.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.8% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.8% | 14.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.4% | 18.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 91.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.8% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| 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 | 30.1% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
49.1% 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 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 49.1%CMS range 30.8–61.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.3%CMS range 7.2–17.1 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.2%CMS range 3.4–12.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.42 | 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 56 beds and averages 32.8 residents a day — about 59% occupied, or roughly 23 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 3.25 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.00 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 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.29 on weekdays — 4% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.84 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-08 · 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 in a safe manner. This applies to one of two residents (R13) reviewed for safety in the sample of 23. The findings include: The face sheet for R13 shows she was admitted to the facility with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's, hypertension and muscle weakness. The facility assessment dated [DATE] shows her to have severe cognitive impairment and requires maximum staff assistance with transfers. On 5/6/2025 at 9:12 AM, R13 was observed being transferred from her wheelchair to her bed by V3 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). V3 who was wearing a gait belt around her waist, lifted R13 up from her wheelchair by placing her arms under R13's arms, pivoted her to the bed and lowered her onto her bed. On 5/7/2025 at 1:52 PM, V3 said a gait belt should have been used to transfer R13 from the chair to her bed. On 5/7/2025 at 1:48 PM, V2 Director of Nursing (DON) said a gait belt should always be used during a transfer for 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 before2025-05-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide incontinence care in a manner to prevent cross-contamination for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R23) reviewed for infection control in the sample of 23. The findings include: 1. On 5/6/25 at 9:34 AM, V3 and V4 (Certified Nursing Assistants - CNAs) used a total mechanical lift to transfer R1 into bed. They turned R1 side to side to removed the sling. V4 (CNA) opened R1's incontinence brief to provide care. V4 said R1's brief was wet and used wipes to cleanse the urine from R1's perineal area. V4 used the same (contaminated) gloves to obtain a clean brief and remove R1's glasses. Then V4 used a wipe to clean R1's bottom, applied barrier cream, turned R1 and closed the clean brief. V4 covered R1 with a blanket. V4 was wearing the same contaminated gloves throughout the observation. R1's Facesheet dated 5/8/25 showed R1 had diagnoses to include, but not limited to: osteoarthritis, palmar facial fibromatosis, Alzheimer's Disease, hypertension,…
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 before2024-04-03 · 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 implement an Enhanced Barrier Precautions Procedure which applies to all 30 residents in the facility. The findings include: The federal form 671 completed by the facility on 4/1/24 showed the facility census was 30 residents. On 4/1/24 the facility had no Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) signs up or Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) carts out for EBP residents. The facility's EBP list dated 4/1/24 showed R13, R16, and R26 had feeding tubes. R3, R23, R30, and R83 had indwelling urine catheters. R3 also has a daily wound dressing change. On 4/1/24 at 11:20 AM, V6 and V10 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) provided incontinence care to R16 without wearing PPE gowns during care. No EBP sign was noted on the door at that time. On 4/1/24 at 11:58 AM, V6 and V10 provided peri care for R3. At that time, V5 Licensed Practical Nurse entered R3's room to provide wound care. V5, V6, and V10 did not wear gowns while providing cares for R3. No EBP sign was posted at the time of the cares. On 4/2/24 at 8:50 AM, V9…
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 · D2024-04-03 · 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 have pressure relieving devices in place for one of one resident (R3) with high risk of pressure injuries in the sample of 12. The findings include: R3's Transfer Discharge report dated April 1, 2024 shows R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acquired absence of right foot, pressure injury of left heel, and congestive heart failure. R3's Care Plan shows R3 has potential for pressure injury development related to peripheral vascular disease, advanced age, poor safety awareness, and chronic pain. Follow facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown. R3's Scale for Predicting Pressure Injury Risk for that R3 has a moderate risk for developing pressure injuries. R3's Wound Weekly Observation Tool dated March 20, 2024 shows that R3 had a pressure injury to his coccyx that healed. R3's Wound Weekly Observation Tool dated April 1, 2024 shows that R3 developed a stage II pressure injury…
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 before2024-04-03 · 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 safely perform ADL (Activities of Daily Living) assistance for one of 12 residents (R21) reviewed for safety in the sample of 12. The findings include: R21's Transfer/Discharge Report dated April 3, 2023 shows R21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute kidney failure, muscle wasting and atrophy, cognitive communication deficit, fall, morbid obesity, and dementia. R21's Care Plan shows R21 requires extensive assistance by two staff to turn and reposition in bed. R21's Monthly Nursing Screen dated December 19, 2023 shows R21 requires extensive assistance with two staff members for bed mobility. R21's Progress Note dated December 23, 2023 at 5:45 AM shows, the nurse was told by CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) R21 had a fall and had two skin tears. R21's right elbow and left forearm had a skin tear. R21 had a large knot on his forehead. 911 was called, the paramedics came. R21's Progress Note dated December 23, 2023 at…
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 · D2024-01-02 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a resident's legal representative of a change in condition for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for notification in the sample of 6. The findings include: R1's Illinois Statutory Short Form Power of Attorney for Health Care (POAHC) shows R1 designated V6 as her legal POAHC on 6/6/2017. R1's IDPH Uniform Practitioner Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Form dated 8/7/21 shows V6 signed as R1's legal representative. R1's Incident/Accident Report dated 10/13/23 shows V3 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) notified V7 (R1's son) when R1 was found on the floor in her room. R1's admission Record (Face Sheet) dated 8/1/23 shows R1's first emergency contact is V6. On 1/2/23 at 10:26 AM, V3 said she notified V7 (R1's son) when R1 was found on the floor and planned to send R1 to the hospital. V3 said she notified V7 and not V6 because V7 was the first emergency contact, and he knew more about R1. V3 said V7 would tell them to notify him first for everything regarding R1 and he would notify the rest of the family. On 1/2/23…
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 · D2023-05-17 · 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 ensure a resident's oral appliance was applied correctly for a resident who requires extensive assist with personal hygiene/oral care. This applies to 1 of 12 (R29) residents reviewed for activities of daily living in the sample 12. The findings include: R29's face sheet shows she is an [AGE] year-old with diagnosis including bilateral osteoarthritis of first carpometacarpal joints, hemiplegia affecting left and right side, and contractures to left and right hand. R29's Minimum Data Sheet assessment dated [DATE] shows she requires extensive assist with transfers, personal hygiene, eating, and has limited range of motion to both upper extremities. On 5/15/23 at 12:50 PM, R29 was in the dining room during the noon meal. She was served chopped pot roast, potatoes, and broccoli. V6 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) was feeding R29 her noon meal. R29 said to V6 something is stuck in the back of my throat, it's scaring me. V6 wheeled R29 to 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 · D2023-05-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to handle ready to eat foods according to professional food safety standards. This applies to 2 (R12 and R13) of 12 residents reviewed for food safety in the sample of 12. The findings include: On 5/15/2023 at 12:15 PM, V3 (Dietary Manager) requested bread for R12 and R13 from V4 (Cook). V4 reached into the bread package without gloves, grabbed two slices of bread, and placed them into a plastic bag. V3 served the bread to R12 and R13. On 5/15/2023 at 12:20 PM, V3 said that gloves should be used to serve bread and other ready to eat foods. Facility Bare Hand Contact with Ready-To-Eat Foods policy (no date) states, The Food Service Sanitation Rules & Regulations state that food employees cannot handle ready-to-eat foods with their bare hands. Ready-to-eat foods are foods that will be consumed without additional washing, cooking, or preparation. What are some examples of ready-to-eat foods? Fresh fruits and vegetables served raw, bread, toast, rolls, and baked goods .
- Potential for harm · D2023-05-17 · 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 offer and administer pneumonia vaccines (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV15] and Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23]) for 2 of 5 residents (R6 and R29) reviewed for vaccines in the sample of 12. The findings include: 1. R6's face sheet shows R6 is [AGE] years old and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R6's Immunization Report provided on 5/16/2023 showed R6 received the PCV13 (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13] vaccine on 9/22/2017 and did not receive the PPSV23 vaccine. On 5/17/2023 at 9:00 AM, V2 (Director of Nurses) said that R6 was not offered the second dose of the pneumonia vaccine. V2 believed that there should be five years between administration of the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 vaccine. 2. R29's face sheet shows R29 is [AGE] years old and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R29's Immunization Report provided on 5/16/2023 showed R29 received the PCV13 vaccine on 8/13/2019 and did not receive the PPSV23 vaccine. On…
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. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-08-08 for 20 days
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 613 CLUB, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 12% | since 05/01/2003 |
| BRANDMAN, GITTEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 30% | since 09/01/2006 |
| BRANDMAN, MOSHE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 09/01/2006 |
| GOLDBERG, YEHUDIT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 09/01/2006 |
| ABELL, DAVID | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/01/2006 |
| BRANDMAN, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/11/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.
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 $508K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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 146127. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-08, 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.