Allure Of Walnut
308 South Second Street, Walnut, IL 61376 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 62 certified beds · (815) 379-2131 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
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2025
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 7.6% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.9% | 6.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.0% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 8.8% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 51.8% | 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 | 2.9% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.8% | 14.3% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.1% | 18.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 91.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.4% | 20.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.7% | 21.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 63.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 9.4% | 26.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.1% | 13.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.70 | 2.02 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.75 | 2.22 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.7% 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 44 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 13.5% 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 37 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 | 54.7%CMS range 42.2–65.8 | 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 | 10.9%CMS range 7.2–17.2 | 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 | 13.5% | 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 | 5.4% | 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 | 18.9% | 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 | 95.7% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.2% | 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 | 4.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.3% | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 3.2–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 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 62 beds and averages 40.4 residents a day — about 65% occupied, or roughly 22 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.38 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.04 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.54 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to perform a PASARR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) rescreen after the emergence of a newly diagnosed severe mental illness for two of three residents (R4, R27) reviewed for PASARR screening, in the sample of 24. Findings include: The (undated) facility policy, Resident Assessment- Coordination with PASARR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) Program directs staff, This facility coordinates assessments with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability or a related condition receives care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability or a related condition will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for a level II resident review. 1. R4's (facility) Face…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) Level II screening was completed for one of three residents (R31) reviewed for PASARR screenings in the sample of 24. Findings include: The facility's Resident Assessment- Coordination with PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) policy documents the following: All applicants to this facility will be screened for serious mental disorders or intellectual disabilities and related conditions in accordance with the State's Medicaid rules for screening. This same policy documents, Positive Level I Screen- necessitates a PASARR Level II evaluation prior to admission. This policy also documents, The Level II resident review must be completed within 40 calendar days of admission. R31's medical record documents R31's current diagnoses to include: Psychotic Disorder with Hallucinations due to known Physiological Condition; Anxiety Disorder; and Major Depressive Disorder. R31's medical…
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 · D2025-04-24 · 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 interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pressure ulcer treatment was completed as ordered for one of two residents (R31) reviewed for pressure ulcers in the sample of 24. Findings include: The facility's Wound Treatment Management policy (dated 2024) documents the following; Wound treatments will be provided in accordance with physician orders, including the cleansing method, type of dressing, and frequency of dressing change. R31's Wound Evaluation and Management Summary (dated 04/22/25) documents the following after V8 (Wound Physician) examined R31 on 04/22/25: Stage III pressure wound of the left sacrum full thickness. Surgical Excisional Debridement Procedure: The wound was cleansed with normal saline and anesthesia was achieved using topical benzocaine. Then with clean surgical technique, curette was used to surgically excise 3.70 square centimeters of devitalized tissue including slough, biofilm and non-viable subcutaneous level tissues were removed at a depth of 0.2 centimeters and healthy bleeding tissue was observed. This same…
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 · D2025-04-24 · 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 range of motion program was implemented for a resident with functional limitations for one of four residents (R31) reviewed for range of motion in the sample of 24. Findings include: R31's Medical Record documents R31's current diagnoses to include: Parkinson's Disease with Dyskinesia; Adult Failure to Thrive, and Chronic Pain. R31's Minimum Data Set Assessment (dated 03/13/25) documents the following in Section GG: R31 has impairment on both sides of his lower extremities. R31's Restorative Observations form (dated 03/13/25) documents the following: R31 has mild (75% of normal) state of mobility in his neck, left hip, right hip, left ankle, and left foot; R31 has moderate (50% of normal) state of mobility in his left knee, right knee, right ankle, and right foot. On 04/21/25 at 01:40 PM, R31 was sitting reclined in a high-back reclining chair in the hallway near his room with a fall alarm in place. R31 was wearing glasses and non-slip socks. A wheelchair cushion with a raised, padded section in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 tubing for an enteral tube feeding was dated, and items utilized during a tube feeding remained clean for one of two residents (R1) reviewed for tube feedings in the sample of 24. Findings include: The facility's Care and Treatment of Feeding Tubes policy (dated 2024) documents, It is a policy of this facility to utilize feeding tubes in accordance with current clinical standards of practice, with interventions to prevent complications to the extent possible. This policy also documents, Use of infection control precautions and related techniques to minimize the risk of contamination. R1's current Physician's Orders document the following nutritional order: Jevity (nutritional feeding) 1.2 kilocalories per milliliter give 85 milliliters per hour via gastrostomy tube in the evening. Run at 85 milliliters per hour for 16 hours and remove per schedule. R1's current Care Plan documents the following focus: (R1) requires a tube feeding related to dysphagia due to a stroke. She is NPO (nothing by mouth). She…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement specific PTSD/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder interventions for one of one (R27) residents reviewed for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in a sample of 24. Findings include: The facility's Trauma Informed Care policy, undated, documents it is the policy of this facility to provide care and services which, in addition to meeting professional standards, are delivered using approaches which are culturally-competent, account for experiences and preferences, and address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing triggers and/or re-traumatizing. This form documents that trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual's functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being. R27's current Face Sheet documents the following diagnosis: Insomnia, Delusional Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Dementia, unspecified severity, 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 · D2025-04-24 · 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 interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions were implemented prior to administering cares for two of eight residents (R31 and R41) reviewed for Transmission Based Precautions in the sample of 24. Findings include: The facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy (dated 2025) documents the following: It is the policy of this facility to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions for the prevention of transmission of multi-resistant drug organisms. Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloves use during high contact resident care activities. This policy also documents, High-contact resident care activities include: Dressing; Bathing, Transferring; Providing hygiene; Changing linens; Changing briefs or assisting with toileting; Device care or use: central lines, urinary catheters, feeding tubes, tracheostomy/ventilator tubes, hemodialysis catheters, PICC (peripherally inserted central…
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 · D2025-03-08 · 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
Based on Interview and Record review, the facility failed to prevent an incident of resident to resident physical abuse, re-assess resident's risk for abuse and revise abuse care plans after founded physical abuse occurred for two of three residents (R1, R2) reviewed for abuse in the sample of three. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, dated 8/2024, documents It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. Physical Abuse includes but it not limited to hitting, slapping, punching, biting, and kicking. It also includes controlling behavior through corporal punishment. This same policy also documents The facility will implement policies and procedures to prevent and prohibit all types of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation that achieves: The identification, ongoing assessment, care planning for…
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 · D2024-05-23 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to identify the indication for the prolonged duration of use for 1 of 1 (R22) resident with a prescribed antibiotic maintenance dose in a sample of 12 residents. Findings include: On 11/24/22, R22's Physician ordered an Antibiotic for maintenance dose for a history of frequent of Urinary Tract Infections with no stop date. On 2/22/24, R22's Careplan documents (R22) has developed a UTI (Urinary Tract Infection). Doctor ordered no stop date and would like R22 to be on a maintenance dose of Antibiotic therapy. On 8/21/23, R22's Physician ordered an Antibiotic for treatment of a Urinary Tract Infection for 7 days. On 5/7/24, R22's Physician ordered an Antibiotic for treatment of a Urinary Tract Infection for 10 days. On 5/22/24 at 11:45 AM, V3 (Infection Control Preventionist) stated I don't know why R22 is on it (maintenance Antibiotic). It (maintenance Antibiotic) hasn't stopped R22 from getting UTI's.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-23 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered by the physician for three residents (R4, R27 and R31) on the sample of 10 residents reviewed for medication pass. This failure resulted in four medication errors out of thirty- one opportunities for error, for a 21.9% medication error rate. FINDINGS INCLUDE: The facility policy, Medication Administration, dated (7/1/23) directs staff, Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection. Ensure the six rights of medication administration are followed: right resident, right drug, right dosage, right route, right time and right documentation. 1. R4's current Physician Order Sheet, dated May 2024 includes the following medications: Baclofen 10 MG (1/2 tab) one tablet twice daily; Eliquis 5 MG one tab twice daily; Glucophage 500 MG one tablet two times daily with food; Tylenol 500 MG…
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 · D2024-05-23 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to identify, track, monitor and analyze for trends in data for 2 of 2 (R3, R22) in a sample of 12 residents. Findings include: The Infection Prevention and Control Policy and Procedure policy, dated 7/28/21, documents an Infection Criteria Checklist includes the date the infection was first suspected, evidence the infection was or was not present upon admission, what infection is present, testing, treatment, outcome and follow-up. The Infection Prevention and Control Monthly Log will be completed and used to track infections in the facility and noting trends that may be present. R3's Physician's Orders dated 4/4/24, 4/10/24 and 4/18/24 documents an Antibiotic was ordered for treatment of a Urinary Tract Infection. The Infection Prevention and Control Monthly Log dated April 2024 lacked documentation of R3's Urinary Tract Infection and the other required data. R22's Physician's Orders dated 11/22/23 documents an Antibiotic was ordered for an Upper Respiratory Infection. The Infection Prevention and Control Monthly Log dated…
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 · D2023-08-03 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to revise the care plan to to include preference to exclude specific staff from providing care for one (R2) of two residents reviewed for care plans. Findings include: On 8/2/23 at 1:10 pm, R2 stated that V4, CNA is always in a hurry to get to the next resident We don't see eye to eye. R2 stated that V4 was changing him in the sit to stand lift and was trying to balance on his bad foot and bad hip/leg. R2 stated V4 doesn't clean him well, just wipes with dry paper. R2 stated that he told them he didn't want V4 as a caregiver again and it was ok for 2-3 days, then V4 answered my light and came in to help me go to the bathroom. On 8/3/23 at 12:15 pm, V2 DON (Director of Nursing) stated R2 did notify her that he did not want V4 to provide care. V2 stated they should have updated R2's care plan with R2's request. Current care plan did not include any documentation that R2 did not want V4 providing his care.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-17 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to identify an appropriate indication for administration of an antipsychotic medication for two residents with a diagnosis of Dementia (R31, R42) of three residents reviewed for unnecessary antipsychotic medications in the sample of 18. Findings include: Facility Policy/Psychotropic Medication dated/revised 11/28/17 documents: These medications are to be given to treat a specific condition/medical symptom that is diagnosed and documented in the medical record. Specific condition/medical symptoms alone are not enough to justify pharmalogical use. An evaluation must be done to determine other possible physical, mental, behavioral, psychosocial needs. Additionally, antipsychotic medication may be indicated for use if: Behavioral symptoms present a danger to the resident or others; Expressions or indications of distress that are significant distress to the resident. 1) Physician's Order Summary Report indicates R31 was admitted to the facility…
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.
- 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 ALLURE HEALTHCARE SERVICES — 15 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 | 3.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 1.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
The other 14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MN1 MANAGEMENT CORP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 30% | since 07/01/2023 |
| GOLDBERG, JEREMY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 30% | since 07/01/2023 |
| OSEROFF, MEYER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 30% | since 07/01/2023 |
| WENGROW, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 07/01/2023 |
| NUDELL, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 30% | since 07/01/2023 |
| MORRIS, SUSAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| MEYER, SAMANTHA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $210K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IL
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 146063. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-24, 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.