Elevate Care Northbrook
270 Skokie Highway, Northbrook, IL 60062 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 298 certified beds · (847) 498-9320 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (18% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $170,883 in federal fines (most recent 2026-06-23)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 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 | 7.5% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.4% | 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 | 0.3% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 71.3% | 54.2% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 1.3% | 14.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.3% | 18.3% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 91.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.4% | 4.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.8% | 20.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.0% | 21.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 59.4% | 63.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.0% | 26.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.0% | 13.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.02 | 2.02 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.83 | 2.22 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
37.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 77 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 44.8% 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 29 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 0.11 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 7% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 37.1%CMS range 27.3–49.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.8%CMS range 9.3–16.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 44.8% | 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 | 31.0% | 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 | 20.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.9% | 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 | 85.2% | 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 | 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 | 1.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.6%CMS range 4.8–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.18 | 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 298 beds and averages 205.0 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 93 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.63 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.49 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.25 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.79 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.95 to 0.72 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 18% 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-09-08 · 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for a resident with documented history of dysphagia, despite recommendations from speech therapy that resident should have swallowing precautions in place; and failed to follow policy and guidelines in performing emergency procedures during life-threatening situations. These deficiencies affected one (R1) of four residents reviewed for accidents and supervision. As a result, R1 was allowed to eat independently, experienced a choking incident, and subsequently died in route to the hospital for emergency care. These failures resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 08/12/25 when R1 had a choking incident during mealtime while being watched by V6 (Certified Nurse, Assistant) and subsequently died during transport to the hospital. V1 (Administrator), V2 (Director of Nursing), V3 (Assistant Director of Nursing), V35 (Vice President of Operations) and V36 (Regional Nurse Consultant) were notified…
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 before2026-06-23 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to comply with its Abuse and Retaliation Policy and Prevention Program by failing to protect a resident from staff abuse. This failure resulted in severe pain for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for abuse in a sample of 5.The findings include:R1 is a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE], having moderate cognitive impairment as per the minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE].On 6/16/26 at 9:45 AM, R1's door was closed, and a screaming sound was heard from R1's room. This surveyor knocked on the door and found that V7 (Certified Nursing Assistant /CNA) was providing care for R1. The surveyor stepped back and closed R1's door and remained in the hallway talking to another resident (R6) adjacent to R1's room.On 6/16/26 at 9:48 AM, the surveyor heard louder screaming from R1 and observed that R1 had turned to her left side with a right knee immobilizer and multiple pieces of linen on the floor. V7 responded that she is doing patient care. 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-06-23 · 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 follow its Fall Prevention Program by failing to implement appropriate interventions to ensure the safety of fall-risk residents for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for falls. This failure has resulted in a fall with a right distal femur fracture. The facility also failed to follow its elopement policy by failing to monitor and prevent the departure of an elopement-risk resident for 1 of 3 residents (R7) reviewed for elopement. Findings include:1. R1 is a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE], having moderate cognitive impairment as per the minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE].On 6/16/26 at 10:15 AM, R1 was observed in her bed along with R1's nurse (V4). R1 stated, I had a fall last week, and I can't recall how I fell.On 6/16/26 at 10:15 AM, R1's call light was observed hanging from the wall behind the headboard and the bedside table with a water cup and remote on her right side (behind head), and was not within reach.On 6/16/26 at 10:15…
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 · G2025-09-08 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 provide care in accordance with professional standards of quality by failing to develop and implement a care plan for a resident with documented history of dysphagia, despite recommendations from speech therapy that resident should have swallowing precautions in place; and by failing to follow policy and guidelines in performing emergency procedures during life-threatening situations. These deficiencies affected one (R1) of four residents reviewed for accidents and supervision and resulted in R1 experiencing a choking episode and subsequently died in route to the hospital for emergency care. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards of quality by failing to develop and implement a care plan for a resident with documented history of dysphagia, despite recommendations from speech therapy that resident should have swallowing precautions in place. These deficiencies affected one (R1)…
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 · G2025-03-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to manage a resident with an insulin overdose in accordance with the standards of care for 1 of 4 residents (R1) reviewed for quality of care in the sample of 4. This failure resulted in a delayed transfer to the hospital, R1's wife summoning EMS (emergency medical services) and R1 being admitted to the ICU (intensive care unit) with an insulin overdose and hypoglycemia. The findings include: On [DATE] at 1:02 PM, V4, Registered Nurse (RN), said he found R1 to be groggy and sleepy at the end of his (night) shift (on [DATE]). V4 said he checked R1's blood glucose (BG), all BG measurements in this citation are in milligrams/deciliter (mg/dl) and it was very low; in the 30s. V4 said he gave R1 glucagon (a medication used to treat severe low blood (sugar) glucose) which he got from the crash cart and R1 slowly regained his alertness. V4 said glucagon should start working 15 to 30 minutes after administration. V4 said he then gave R1 some juice. V4 said R1…
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 before2024-06-10 · 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 ensure that a resident's hospital bed was in good working order and in condition to be used safely. This failure applied to one (R3) of three residents reviewed for falls and resulted in R3 sustaining a fall from bed that resulted in R3 sustaining a right arm (humeral) fracture. The surveyor confirmed by observation, interview, and record review that the deficient practice was corrected on 4/17/24, prior to the start of this survey, and was therefore Past Noncompliance. Findings include: R3 is an [AGE] year-old female with medical diagnoses that include (but not limited to): Disruption of external operation (surgical) wound, unspecified fracture of the lower end of right radius, vascular disorder of intestine, presence of cardiac pacemaker, difficulty in walking, abnormal posture, weakness, and history of fall. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged after transfer to hospital on [DATE]. R3's Care Plan includes the following: -…
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 · D2026-06-23 · 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 follow its Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care policy by failing to provide nail care to dependent residents. This applies to 1 of 3 residents reviewed (R3) for ADL care in a sample of 9.The findings include:R3 is a [AGE] year-old male admitted with mild cognitive impairment as per the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE]. The MDS also documented that R3 requires supervision or touching assistance for personal hygiene.On 6/16/26 at 10:32 AM, R3 was observed with long, dirty nails with brownish colored dirt accumulated underneath the nails. The left thumbnail was observed to be around 7 millimeters long, with dirt under the nails.On 6/16/26 at 10:40 AM, V4 (R3's Nurse) stated, The Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) are supposed to provide nail care.A review of the nurse practitioner's note dated 6/5/26 documented that R3's sores started with insect bites, with some appearing excoriated with central crusting/scabbing, one appears to have…
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 before2025-10-27 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from physical abuse from another resident for 1 (R1) of four residents reviewed for abuse in a sample of four.Findings include:R1 is a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including but not limited to Paraplegia; Personal History of Other (Healed) Physical Injury and Trauma; Major Depressive Disorder; Adult Failure to Thrive; Nicotine Dependence, Cigarettes; Full Incontinence of Feces; Generalized Anxiety Disorder; Muscle Wasting and Atrophy; and Unspecified Lack of Coordination.According to R1's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] under section C, R1 has BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 15 indicating intact cognition. R1's behavioral care plan dated 10/15/2025 reads in part, During the MDS mood state interview, (R1) answered affirmatively when asked if I feel lonely or isolated from those around me. This may be exacerbated by feelings I…
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 · E2025-10-10 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 implement its policy for Abuse prevention program. This deficiency affects all four (R2, R3, R4 and R5) residents reviewed for Abuse prevention program. Findings include:On 10/8/25 at 1:30PM, V4 SSD (Social Service Director) said that as part of Abuse prevention program, Abuse/trauma assessment is completed upon resident admission, quarterly assessment, annually and as needed when there is allegation or incident of abuse. Abuse assessment score of above 2 indicates at risk for abuse and abuse prevention care plan should be initiated. Abuse prevention care plan is updated after investigation of allegation or incident of abuse or resident to resident altercation. On 10/9/25 at 9:30AM, V13 Care plan Coordinator said that Abuse prevention care plan is updated when there is an allegation or incident of abuse. V4 SSD is responsible for completing abuse assessment and updating abuse prevention care plan. 1.On 10/8/25 at 11:43AM, Observed R2…
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 · E2024-08-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their medication storage policy by not ensuring an insulin vial was properly labeled and stored in accordance with accepted professional practice. This failure affected 6 residents with orders for Lispro (Human) insulin (R97, R105, R124, R146, R187, R193) of 6 residents reviewed for medication label and storage. Findings include: On [DATE] at 11:28 AM, reviewed medication storage and labeling task for 1 east med cart with V14 (Registered Nurse) and observed an opened and unlabeled vial of lispro insulin that was half filled. When asked which resident the insulin vial belonged to, V14 (RN) said he did not know. When asked if the insulin vial was currently being used and if the vial should be stored in the refrigerator when not in use, V14 (RN) said yes. V14 (Registered Nurse) then said the insulin vial should have been properly labeled with the resident's name, dated when opened with the date of expiration indicated to avoid staff…
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 · D2024-08-14 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered for 1 (R93) of 5 residents reviewed during medication administration in the sample of 48. There were 27 opportunities with two errors resulting in a 7.41% error rate. Findings include: On 08/12/24 at 09:22 AM Surveyor observed V11 (Licensed Practical Nurse) administering medications on the second floor unit. Surveyor observed V11 (LPN) administering medications to R93. On 08/12/2024 at 01:56 PM Surveyor noticed, while completing medication reconciliation, that V11 (LPN) documented in R93's MAR (Medication Administrator Record) two medications as given whereas surveyor did not observe those medications being given during medication administration task. On 08/12/24 at 02:13 PM Surveyor interviewed V11 (LPN). Surveyor asked if V11 (LPN) gave all medications to R93, V11 (LPN) said, R93 refused two. Surveyor asked if V11 (LPN) followed up with R93 and offered it again, V11 (LPN) said, I will do it right now. Surveyor established that V11 (LPN) signed out both medications as…
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 · E2024-06-10 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to follow its own policy by not providing the services of an onsite beautician, this failure affected four (R4, R5, R6, and R7) of four residents reviewed for resident rights. Findings include: On 6-8-2024 at 1:30 PM V20 (R4's family member) said, R4 cannot be scheduled to see a barber at the facility because they do not provide the services of a barber or a beautician, for a very long time, I can send money for R4 to be scheduled with the barber because R4 likes to have a short hair. On 6-8-2024 at 10:50 am R4 said, my hair is long now, I am waiting for my family to take me out to get it groomed because not everyone can take care of my hair (referring to the curly hair), we do not have a barber here in the facility for a long time. R5 is a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that include and are not limited to: asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, and diabetes. MDS- BIMS: 15/15 dated 5-3-2024. On 6-8-2024 at 11:20…
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 · E2024-06-10 · tag F0712 — patternEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
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 that residents are personally seen by their physician for an initial comprehensive visit upon admission and at least once every 60 days while in the facility. This failure applied to four of four (R1, R4, R5, R6) residents reviewed for physician services. Findings include: R1 is a [AGE] year-old male originally admitted on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that include and are not limited to: Myopathy, Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. R1's primary care physician is V24 (Medical Director). R4 is a [AGE] year-old male originally admitted on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that include and are not limited to: cerebral palsy, schizo-affective disorder, diabetes, and hypertension. R4's primary care physician is V26 (Medical Doctor). R5 is a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that include and are not limited to: asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, and diabetes. R5's primary care physician is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-09-14 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to follow their policy and procedures for serving food under sanitary conditions by not properly wearing hair restraints, not practicing hand hygiene when necessary, not ensuring sanitizer solution was replaced when needed, not ensuring kitchen appliances were properly cleaned and stored, not ensuring the ice machine was thoroughly clean when in use, and not recording final cook temperatures. This failure has the potential to affect all 210 residents in the facility. Findings include: 09/11/2023 at 10:23 AM - 10:40 AM, Observed a large ice machine filled with ice to have heavy rust like buildup inside of the machine at the hinge of the door. Observed V4 (Director of Dining Services) was able to wipe away the buildup with his finger. V4 stated the ice machine is cleaned weekly. V4 stated the buildup in the ice machine could possibly be rust. V4 stated the ice machine should be free of any buildup. Observed the meat slicer to have stuck on and loose food particles once the plastic bag cover was removed by V4.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 reviews the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure for catheter use by not ensuring a urology evaluation for urinary catheter removal was scheduled for a resident with a history of urinary tract infections. This failure applies to one of two residents (R199) reviewed for catheter and urinary tract infection. Findings include: R199 is a [AGE] year-old male with a diagnoses history of Urinary Tract Infection, Hypertensive Chronic Kidney Disease, and Stage 4 Chronic Kidney Disease who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 09/11/23 at 11:33 AM Observed R199 lying in his bed with a urinary catheter attached. V23 (Family Member) reported that the facility was supposed to have faxed a request for a urology appointment for R199 with the VA (Veterans Administration) however the VA had not received it. V23 stated he and R199 are still waiting for the urologist to confirm receiving the request. V23 stated R199 wishes to have his catheter removed due to limited…
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
$170,883 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $37,800 — penalty dated 2026-06-23
- $133,083 — penalty dated 2025-08-01
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-08-29 for 12 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ELEVATE CARE — 14 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 13 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATIED ASSOCIATES LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| DAVID A BERKOWITZ DELTA TRUST | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| KEYSTONE HOLDING GROUP II LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| MEIR MEYSTEL REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| TESR HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/01/2019 |
| YOSEF MEYSTEL DELTA TRUST | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| MEYSTEL, MOSHE | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| PANCER, AARON | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/01/2019 |
| WINER, YERUCHAM | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/01/2019 |
| BOBILA, FIEL ERIC | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| FRANK, CRAIG | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| JINDAL, RAJESH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| SALES, MARY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| ELEVATE CARE INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/13/2025 |
| ANDREWS, AMANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| MEYSTEL, MEIR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| SPECTOR, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| TUROFSKY, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2019 |
| WILHELM, NAFTALI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
| BERKOWITZ, DAVID | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/15/2025 |
| MEYSTEL, YOSEF | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/15/2025 |
| 270 SKOKIE BLVD, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/24/2025 |
| CURIS SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 42 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Illinois Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 145171. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-14, 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.