Lutheran Hillside Village
6901 North Galena Road, Peoria, IL 61614 · Non profit - Corporation · 107 certified beds · (309) 692-4494 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2025
- 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
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.8% | 13.4% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.3% | 6.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.5% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.9% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 54.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.9% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.3% | 14.3% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.6% | 18.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.6% | 91.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.6% | 20.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.7% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.4% | 63.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.3% | 26.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.5% | 13.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.09 | 2.02 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.88 | 2.22 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
46.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 146 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.4% 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 94 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 46.3%CMS range 38.2–52.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.4%CMS range 6.0–12.2 | 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 | 56.4% | 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 | 59.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 50.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.0% | 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 | 5.2%CMS range 2.7–9.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 107 beds and averages 74.0 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 33 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 4.40 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.79 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.07 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.53 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.88 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-06-17 · 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, observation and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate nursing interventions related to life-sustaining treatment during a choking episode, failed to provide supervision during meals and failed to follow a physician's diet order; and failed to obtain a Negotiated Risk Assessment for one of three (R1) residents reviewed with swallowing difficulty and on special/modified diets who required supervision during meals. This failure resulted in R1 choking on a tater tot and ultimately expired. This past non-compliance, which involved R1, occurred from 4/15/26 to 5/12/26.Findings include:The Emergency Response policy revised 10/23/24 documents the goal of staff training is to enable employees to provide basic life support and/or first aid interventions. In case of life-threatening injuries or situations, the goal is patient stabilization until emergency responders arrive. Basic first aid intervention includes choking and breathing emergencies.Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) role…
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 before2025-10-15 · 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, observation and record review, the facility failed to de-escalate a resident prior to transfer, investigate incident to identify the root cause and implement interventions to potentially prevent further events for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R3) reviewed for falls in a sample of 4.Findings include:The Event Reporting policy dated 7/29/21 documents an adverse event is defined as an unexpected occurrence which was not expected within normal course of care of disease process and condition of the resident. An adverse event may or may not result in injury and may or may not have resulted from a medical or healthcare error. A witness statement form is used only for witnesses who observed the adverse event. The Administrator, Director of Nursing, Risk Designee and their delegates should conduct investigations. Reporting of abuse/neglect of reasonably suspected resident abuse and/or neglect will be reported to the state agency. 1. R1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hemiplegia following a Cerebral…
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 · D2025-02-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free of abuse/misappropriation of property for three of four residents (R1, R3, and R4) reviewed for theft in the sample of seven. Findings include: Facility Policy/Abuse/Neglect Prevention and Response date 7/29/21 documents: Residents and clients of (the facility) will live and be served in an environment that promotes dignity, respect and strives to be free from abuse, neglect and exploitation. Misappropriation of property is the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. 1. Physician Orders indicate R1 was a resident at the facility from 11/15/24 to 12/19/24. Final Report of Financial Abuse dated 12/20/24 indicates that on 12/16/24 R1's credit card numbers were reported as compromised. Report indicates after investigation and video surveillance, evidence led to V7, CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant) as being involved. Report…
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 · D2025-02-05 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 revise care plans for two residents (R5, R7) of three residents reviewed for swallowing difficulties in the sample of seven. Findings include: Facility Policy/Care Planning dated 1/1/23 documents: To ensure that care planning is individualized, interdisciplinary and based on the assessed needs of the patient. The care plan process includes structured assessment and documentation to include: Physical and psychological assessment, which addresses the current disease status, treatment options, functional status, expected prognosis, symptom burden and psychological coping. Care plan changes are based on the evolving needs and preferences of the patient and family over time, recognizing the complex, competing and shifting priorities in goals of care. 1. Nurse Note dated 7/12/24 at 12:10pm indicates R5 had a brief coughing spell at lunch on patty melt. Nurse did pat R5 on the back and remained with her during coughing. Note indicates R5 was encouraged to sip fluid after she was able to get her breath. R5 had no…
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 · F2024-12-13 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
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 place the facility's annual State Survey Results in a readily accessible location for residents for viewing. This failure has the potential to affect all 69 Residents residing at the facility. Findings include: The facility's Resident Rights Policy, dated 1/30/24 document: Policy Statement: Staff shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. 1. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of the (facility) community. These rights include the resident's right to: H. Be supported by the (facility) community in exercising their rights; M. Exercise rights not delegated to a legal representative; and W. Examine survey results. The facility's Long-Term Care Facility Application for Medicare and Medicaid (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services/CMS 671) Form, dated 12/10/24, document 69 residents reside in the facility. On 12/11/24 at 1:00 p m, Residents R2, R6, R22, R25, and R53 attended the Resident Council Meeting. Residents confirmed they did not know where the State…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-13 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 a resident call light was in reach for two (R4 and R12) of 17 residents reviewed for call lights in the sample of 26. Findings include: The facility Call Light Response policy and procedure, dated 1/30/24, documents The policy statement To answer call lights and meet resident need(s) in a timely, dignified, and respectful manner. Call lights will be placed within reach of the resident. 1. On 12/12/24 at 8:15 am, R4 was lying in bed on her back with eyes closed. R4's call light noted resting on the floor behind R4's headboard and out of R4's reach. On 12/12/24 at 2:11 pm, R4 was lying in bed on her back and awake. R4's call light noted resting on the floor behind R4's headboard out of R4's reach. R4 mumbled she is unable to locate her call light. On 12/12/24 at 2:20 pm, V11 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) stated R4 has a sensitive touch call light and uses the call light at times. V11 CNA stated R4's call light should not be on the floor behind R4's headboard and should be placed where R4 can reach it.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place for one (R4) and failed to complete fall risk assessments and root cause analysis for two (R4 and R51) of ten residents reviewed for falls in the sample of 26. Findings include: The facility's Management of Fall Risk policy and procedure, dated 1/30/24, documents Based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. Each resident will be assessed for the risk factors for falling on admission, quarterly, with change in condition, and upon return from a health care facility. The facility Fall Log, documents R4 had a fall on 8/3/24 at 3:00 am and R51 had falls on 9/2/24 at 1:15 am, 9/27/24 at 6:45 am, and 10/24/24 at 12:30 am. 1. The current Care Plan for R4 documents R4 is at risk for falls and includes the following interventions as: Fall risk assessment to be completed on admission, quarterly,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-13 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 assess residents for the use of bedrails for two (R26 and R61) of six residents reviewed for bedrails in the sample of 26. Findings include: The facility's Proper Use of Bed Assistive Devices policy and procedure dated 1/30/24, documents The purposes of these guidelines are to ensure the safe use of bed Assistive devices as resident mobility aids and to prohibit the use of bed assistive devices as restraints unless necessary to treat a resident's medical symptoms. Bed assistive devices include side rails, assist rails, and other bed positioning devices. An assessment will be made to determine the resident's symptoms or reason for using the bed assistive device upon initiation, quarterly, and as needed. 1. On 12/10/24 at 10:46 am, there were quarter bed rails noted to each side of R26's bed in the up position. The Bed Assistive Device Assessment's for R26, dated 9/18/24 and 12/7/24 are blank and do not document an assessment having been completed for the use of R26's bed rails. Both assessments document no bed…
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 · E2023-01-26 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor for identified target behaviors and failed to ensure that identified target behaviors were an indication for the use of an antipsychotic medication for seven of seven residents (R3, R17, R23, R34, R35, R50, and R119) reviewed for psychotropic medications in a sample of 32. Findings include: The facility's Psychotropic Medication Policy, revision date 2/14/20, documents, Residents will not receive psychotropic medications unless behavioral programming and/or environmental changes or other non-pharmacological interventions have failed to sufficiently address the resident's target behavioral goals. If antipsychotic medications are prescribed, documentation will show indication for the medication, attempts to implement care-planned, nonpharmacological approaches and ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of these interventions. 6. Identified target behaviors will be monitored each shift along with individualized interventions as well as supporting documentation in the clinical record. 1. R3's Electronic…
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 · D2023-01-26 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for wound dressings and treatments, transcribe a physician order's to the order sheet and the treatment administration record, develop a site-specific wound and wound vacuum care plan, revise a pressure ulcer care plan, sanitize scissors before and during pressure ulcer care, and perform hand hygiene and glove change during pressure ulcer care for two of two residents (R43, R60) reviewed for pressure ulcers in the sample of 32. Findings include: The facility's Standard Precautions policy, dated 9/23/22, documents Standard precautions will be used in the care of all residents regardless of their diagnosis or suspected or confirmed infection status. Standard Precautions presume that all blood, body fluids, secretions, and excretions (except sweat), non-intact skin, and mucous membranes may contain transmissible infectious agents. This same policy also documents Wash hands after removing gloves. Change gloves, as necessary, during the care of a resident to prevent cross-contamination…
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 · D2023-01-26 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range of motion was provided appropriate treatment and services to maintain and/or prevent a further decrease for three of six residents (R4, R43 and R49) reviewed for limited range of motion in the sample of 32. Findings include: 1. R4's current care plan documents the following: R4 has ADL (activities of daily living) self-care deficit, as evidenced by needing assistance with ADL's; weakness in lower extremities. R4's Minimum Data Set Assessment (dated 11/10/22) documents the following in Section G titled 'Functional Limitation in Range of Motion:' R4 has impairment on both sides of her lower extremities. R4's current medical record has no documentation of any type of range of motion program in place. On 01/23/23 at 09:15 AM, R4 was reclined in a recliner with a mechanical lift sling positioned in place underneath her. R4 nodded her head yes when asked is she is a full mechanical lift and when asked if she is unable to stand. On 01/25/23 at 02:15 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing)…
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 before2023-01-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure an elopement deterrent device was monitored for functionality and placement for one resident (R50) reviewed for wandering/elopement in a sample of 32. Findings include: R50's Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessment (dated 09/20/22) documents R50 is at risk for wandering/elopement, and indicates the following: Elopement deterrent device implemented. R50's current Physician's Orders documents the following order: (Elopement deterrent device) check for functionality and placement every shift and PRN (as needed) placement left ankle. R50's current Care Plan documents the following problem: (R50) has exhibited wandering behavior. This same care plan documents the following intervention: Use (elopement deterrent device). Location: left lower extremity. Monitor every shift and PRN (as needed). On 01/23/23 at 10:15 AM, R50 was sitting in a chair in the sitting area watching television with several other residents sitting nearby. R50 was dressed and groomed and a nearby walker was within her reach. An Elopement…
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 before2023-01-26 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 quarterly side rail assessments for one of one resident (R8) reviewed for side rails in the sample of 32. Findings include: The facility's Proper Use of Bed Assistive Devices policy, dated 9/16/22, documents The purpose of these guidelines are to ensure the safe use of bed assistive devices as resident mobility aides and to prohibit the use of bed assistive devices as restraints unless necessary to treat a resident's medical symptoms. Bed assistive devices include side rails, assist rails, and other bed positioning devices. This policy also documents An assessment will be made to determine the resident's symptoms or reason for using the bed assistive device upon initiation, quarterly and as needed. On 1/25/23 at 11:30 AM, R8's bed had bilateral 1/2 side rails in the upright position. R8's current medical record documents the most recent Bed Assistive Device Assessment was completed on 7/2/22. On 1/26/23 at 11:50 AM, V1 (Administrator) stated she does not have a side rail assessment for R8 since July 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 · D2023-01-26 · 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 sanitize scissors before and during wound care, and perform adequate hand hygiene before and during wound care for one of seventeen residents (R60) reviewed for infection control in the sample of 32. Findings include: The facility's Standard Precautions policy, dated 9/23/22, documents Standard precautions will be used in the care of all residents regardless of their diagnosis or suspected or confirmed infection status. Standard Precautions presume that all blood, body fluids, secretions, and excretions (except sweat), non-intact skin, and mucous membranes may contain transmissible infectious agents. This same policy also documents Wash hands after removing gloves. Change gloves, as necessary, during the care of a resident to prevent cross-contamination from one body site to another (when moving from a dirty site to a clean one). Remove gloves promptly after use, before touching non-contaminated items and environmental surfaces, and before going to another resident and wash hands immediately to avoid transfer…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-03-20 for 102 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BEUMER, BRENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/27/2022 |
| CHRISTELL, ROY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/25/2017 |
| COLLING, LAUREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| MEADOWS, MEGAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/24/2022 |
| MUELLER, HARRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/26/2016 |
| SOMBART, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/25/2017 |
| SOMMER, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2023 |
| TOON, NORMAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2019 |
| ANDERSON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2019 |
| BROWN, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/25/2018 |
| MARLES, ADAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/01/2021 |
| NORWINE, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/31/2016 |
| SNEED, CHADWICK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2020 |
| TICE, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/25/2017 |
| COOPER, VALERIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2002 |
| HARMS, JAY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/17/2009 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 16 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.
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 $1.6M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 145768. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-13, 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.