Pana Health And Rehab Center
1000 East Sixth Street Road, Pana, IL 62557 · For profit - Corporation · 128 certified beds · (217) 562-2174 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (27% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Jan 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 33% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- 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 | 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.6% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.9% | 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 | 0.5% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 53.3% | 54.2% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 4.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.6% | 14.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.4% | 18.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.9% | 91.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.7% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.5% | 20.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.6% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.1% | 63.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.2% | 26.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.7% | 13.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.19 | 2.02 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.74 | 2.22 | 1.80 | 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.
34.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 71 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.9% 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 55 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 34.9%CMS range 26.3–45.3 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 7.9–14.5 | 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 | 50.9% | 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 | 47.3% | 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 | 20.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 92.6% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.4% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.2% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 3.5–9.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.66 | 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 128 beds and averages 111.7 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.78 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.88 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 2.53 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.88 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.12 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-20 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from misappropriation of property for one resident (R1) of three residents reviewed for misappropriation in the sample of 3. Findings include:R1's admission Record documented an admission Date of 11/26/24 and listed Diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease, Atrial Fibrillation, and Diabetes Type 2. R1's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that R1 has minimal deficits in cognition. R1's Care Plan dated 12/3/25 documented a problem area, Resident has potential to gift money to the staff.A Police Department Call Detail Report dated 12/4/25 at 3:11pm documented, (V1) called from the facility to let us know that (R1) whom is hospitalized at this time, a family member was alerted by card services that some money had been taken from his debit card that was at the facility. An IDPH Initial Report dated 12/4/25 documented, (R1) Alleged abuse: Misappropriation of property.An IDPH…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that out dated Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative (TB) solution was removed from the 300 hallway medication refrigerator. This failure has the potential to affect all the residents residing on the 300 hall. Findings include: On 04/01/24 at 02:53 PM, the refrigerator in the 300 hall medication room was inspected and observed to have an open vial of TB solution that was half full with an open date of 11-21 written on the vial. On 04/01/24 at 02:55 PM V5, Registered Nurse (RN), stated that yes everyone in the facility uses the TB solution. She continued to state that each hallway may have their own vial but she wasn't sure, and that she isn't sure for how long the solution is good for after it's opened. She continued to state that night shift does the TB test, so she wasn't really a good person to ask that. V5 verified the open date on the TB solution vial was 11-21. On 04/04/24 at 11:35 AM, V1, Administrator, stated that the TB solution should be discarded 30 days after opening. The TB solution box…
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 · D2024-04-08 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the Facility failed to follow their policy by not providing written documentation of a bed hold notice for 1 of 1 residents (R76) reviewed for hospitalizations, in the sample of 29. Findings include: On 4/1/2024 at 12:26 PM, R76 stated that he had been hospitalized recently for water on my legs. R76's Progress Notes, dated 3/21/2024, documented that R76 was sent to the local emergency room (ER) due to complaints of having difficulty breathing as well as a weight gain. On 4/2/2024 at 2:53 PM, V10, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), stated that when a resident is transferred to the hospital/ER the nurses fill out a form in the computer (Electronic Medical Record/EMR) and provide the resident with a bed hold policy. On 4/2/2024 at 3:07 PM, R76's Bed Hold Notification was requested. On 4/3/2024 at 8:40 AM via Electronic Mail (Email), V1, Administrator (ADM), stated that she was unable to provide the notice as requested. On 4/4/2024 at 9:05 AM, V12, Business Office Manager (BOM) stated, We are supposed to (provide the bed hold notice), but we haven't…
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 before2024-04-08 · 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 ensure a resident on blood thinning medication was examined for potential complications following a fall with head injury for 1 of 24 residents (R80) reviewed for quality of care, in the sample of 29. Findings include: R80's Facesheet, dated [DATE], documented that R80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was discharged on [DATE]. R80's Care Plan, dated [DATE], documented that R80 was on a Short term stay in facility for rehabilitation. It further documented that R80 is on anticoagulant therapy, Eliquis (blood thinner medications). It continues to document that the facility was to monitor and report adverse reactions such as blood tinged or red blood in urine and to avoid activities that could result in injury and take precautions to avoid falls. R80's Progress Notes, dated [DATE] at 12:48 PM documented, MD (Medical Director) made aware of resident having blood in catheter tubing. NOR (New Order Received) to hold Eliquis (Blood thinning…
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 · D2024-04-08 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the Facility failed to follow their Contact/Droplet Precautions Policy while administering medications to 1 of 3 residents (R34) reviewed for Transmission Based Precautions (TBP), in the sample of 29. Findings include: On 4/2/2024 at 8:05 AM, V6, Registered Nurse (RN) was observed passing medications. At this time, there was a Contact/Droplet Precaution sign outside of R34's room. At this time, V6 donned a gown and N95 (mask) and was wearing eyeglasses. V6 did not apply gloves. At this time, V6 stated, (R34) has a Coronavirus, but it is not COVID 19. He (R34) went to the ER (Emergency Room) because he had a temp (elevated temperature). He (R34) is on isolation while he is taking his antiviral meds (medications). R34's Progress Note, dated 3/28/2024 at 10:05 PM, documented that R34 returned from the local ER with a diagnosis of a systematic viral illness and was placed on isolation precautions. R34's Progress Note, dated 3/29/2024 at 6:27 AM, documented that R34 continues Droplet isolation due to Coronavirus OC43 and an antiviral…
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 · E2023-09-14 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the Facility failed to ensure resident menus and appropriate serving sizes were followed for 4 of 8 (R3, R5, R6, R7) reviewed for therapeutic diets in the sample of 8. Findings include: 1.R5's Order Summary Report dated 9/13/23 documents R5 is on a regular diet with pureed texture and thin liquid consistency starting on 5/4/22. R5's Diet Card for Lunch on 9/12/23 documents pureed texture with pureed beef tips and mushroom entrée. The Facility's Diet Spreadsheet for Day 17 Pureed documents use of #6 Dip (Scoop=6 ounces) for the Pureed Beef Tips and Mushrooms. On 9/12/23 at 12:12 PM, V6, Interim Dietary Manager, stated, We don't have an extra number six scoop for these, so we are using the two-ounce scoop and giving them three scoops each. V9, Dietary Aide, placed two scoops of pureed meat on R5's plate. 2.R3's Order Summary Report dated 9/13/23 documents R3 is on a No Added Salt (NAS) diet, easy to chew (Mech) (EC7) (Easy to Chew 7) texture, thin consistency. R3's Diet Card for Lunch on 9/12/23 documents regular, easy to chew, NAS…
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 · E2023-03-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 oxygen tubing is dated when placed for weekly replacement and stored in plastic bag when not in use for 5 of 9 residents (R8, R12, R48, R52, R128) reviewed for respiratory care in a sample of 34. Findings include: 1. On 03/21/23 at 9:35 AM, R8 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room. R8 had her oxygen on and there was no date noted to be on the oxygen tubing. On 03/22/23 at 8:45 AM, R8 is sitting in her room in her wheelchair with her oxygen in place. There was no date noted to the oxygen tubing at this time. R8's admission Record, print date of 03/22/023, documents R8 has a diagnosis of respiratory failure with hypoxia. R8's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documents R8 is moderately cognitively impaired. R8's Care Plan, admission date of 08/29/22, documents R8 has impaired gas exchange, has a diagnosis of respiratory failure with hypoxia, administer oxygen as prescribed or per standing order. R8's Physician's Order,…
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 before2023-03-23 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene to prevent cross contamination and the spread of infection for 3 of 9 residents (R21, R45, R35) reviewed for infection control in the sample of 34. Findings include: 1. On 03/21/2023 at 12:30 PM, V11, Registered Nurse (RN), and V9, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA), performed incontinent care for R21. Both V9 CNA and V11, RN, donned and doffed gloves without the benefit of hand hygiene, several times, during the procedure. 2. On 03/21/2023 at 12:45 PM, V8, CNA, and V10, CNA, transferred R45 to the toilet using a gait belt. After R45 was finish using the toilet, V8, with the same gloved hands, took a soapy washcloth and cleansed R45's peri rectal area and buttocks. V8 and V10 then transferred R45 back to her wheelchair with the same gloves they used to cleanse R45 touching the arm rest of R45's wheelchair and gait belt on the resident and then fastened R45 chair alarm seat belt. 3. On 03/21/2023 at 10:55 AM, R35 was sitting on the toilet with call light on, with the sit to stand lift…
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 · D2023-03-23 · 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 review, the facility failed to perform complete incontinent care for 2 of 6 residents (R45, R35) reviewed for incontinent care in the sample of 34. Findings include: 1. On 03/21/2023 at 12:45 PM, V8, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA), and V10, CNA, transferred R45 to the toilet using a sit to stand mechanical lift. After R45 was finish using the toilet, V8 used a soapy wash cloth and cleansed R45's peri rectal area using back and forth strokes and not turning the wash cloth to the clean area. V8 continued to cleanse the buttocks, but did not cleanse the labia, groin area or abdominal folds. V8 and V10 then transferred R45 to her wheelchair. R45's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented that R45 requires extensive assist of 2 staff members to use the toilet and was frequently incontinent of urine. R45's Care plan, dated 01/30/2023, documented, TOILET USE: Assist me to the toilet every 2 hours and as needed. I am frequently incontinent and need assistance with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure medications were properly administered and/or stored for 1 of 5 residents (R64) reviewed for medications in the sample of 34. Findings include: 1. On 03/21/23 at 12:20 PM, R64 was sitting in his room. A medication cup with medications in it was setting on R64's over the bed table. When R64 was questioned about the medication on his over the bed table, R64 stated it was his Gabapentin he takes. He said he knows he should have taken it when the nurse handed it to him, but he didn't because he likes to take it with food. R64's admission Record, print date of 03/22/23, documents R64 has a diagnosis of Peripheral Vascular disease, unspecified, Muscle wasting and atrophy, and Type I Diabetes Mellitus. R64's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documents R64 is cognitively intact. R64's Care Plan, with admission date of 02/02/23, does not have any documentation regarding R64 being able to administer his own medications. R64's Physician's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-02-09 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 provide food at a palatable temperatures during meal service. This had the potential to affect all 72 residents in the facility. Findings include: Resident Council minutes dated 11/2/21, 12/6/21 and 1/3/22, documented, the food continues to be served cold. The concerns addressed to the dietary manager, with dietary manager documentation of, hot food is always temped where it should be before going onto the steamtable. The Facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement, (QAPI) dated, 1/3/22, documented an action Plan titled, COLD food, that addresses issues of, monitor temperatures in the kitchen before serving, with the first tray and last to be served on each cart, monitor pass times, educate staff to keep door closed to cart during serving and random interviews with residents after meals. On 02/07/22 at 11:45 AM, entered kitchen food was placed in the steam table. The following meal service was temped for the following; Ham slices at 152 degrees (F), (Fahrenheit), Peas at 162 degrees( F), Sweet Potatoes…
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 · E2022-02-09 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 attempt Gradual Dose Reductions (GDR's) and put resident centered behavior tracking in place for 4 of 5 residents (R18, R27, R33, R53) reviewed for psychotropic medications in the sample of 41. Findings include: 1. R18's Face Sheet, print date of 2/1/22, documents R18 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Major Depression Disorder and Anxiety. R18's Pharmacy Recommendation, dated 6/29/21, documents, Resident receives the following medication used for depression: Cymbalta 60 mg (milligram) Q (every) AM for Depression since 3/22/2020 resident also continues on Buspar 5 mg bid (twice a day) and hydroxyzine 25 mg q 6 hours prn (as needed) itching. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires attempts at dosage reductions on antidepressant medications used for managing behavior, stabilizing mood, or treating psychiatric disorders twice a year, in two separate quarters (with at least one month between attempts), within the first year of…
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 · D2022-02-09 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 complete a restraint assessment including the risk versus benefits of a seat belt with alarm for 1 of 2 residents (R24) reviewed for physical restraints in the sample of 41. Findings include: R24's admission Record, admission date of 9/16/19, documented a medical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, Dementia, history of falling, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, urgency of urination. R24's Physician Order Sheet, dated 2/8/22, documented an order for seat belt chair alarm in wheelchair, release every two hours and as needed, order dated 12/9/21. R24's Physical device/Psychoactive Medication initial Quarterly Evaluation, dated for the following; R24's admission quarterly evaluations dated from 2/19/20 through 12/2/20 documented, device recommendations of a lap buddy when up in wheelchair for a medical diagnosis of; symptom interference of with judgement, gait, unable to transfer without assistance, physical limitation, history of falls and balance issues and a medical diagnosis of Alzheimer's dementia. 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-02-09 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to perform proper hand hygiene to prevent the spread of infection for 3 of 5 (R5, R39, R47) residents reviewed for and infection control in the sample of 41. Findings include: 1. On 02/08/22 at 9:40 AM, V22, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), provided incontinent care for R5. V22 put gloves on without hand hygiene prior to glove placement, pulled R5's incontinent brief down which was soiled front and back with a large amount of loose smeared brown stool. V22 took a wet cloth and put cleanser on the cloth, cleansed her front perineal area, rolled R5 on her right side, removed the soiled depends, with the same gloves V22 picked up a wet wash cloth and took the bottle of cleanser and put some cleanser on the cloth, cleansed the rectal area. V22 then removed her gloves washed her hands, placed a new incontinent brief down on the bed. On 2/9/22 at 8:45 AM, V2, Director of Nursing (DON), stated, she would expect staff to use appropriate hand hygiene and use hand hygiene prior to applying gloves. The facility Policy and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SUMMIT HEALTHCARE CONSULTING — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 2.6 | +2.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC ILLINOIS HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2023 |
| APOGEE TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2023 |
| SC ILLINOIS I TBD HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2023 |
| PORTZ, CARL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| LICHTMAN, SHALOM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| LIGHT MAN LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2023 |
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.
4 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 $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 33% 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 145267. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-08, 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.