No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Autumn Lake Healthcare at Beloit

2121 Pioneer Dr., Beloit, WI 53511 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (608) 365-9526 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (608) 365-9526 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
2 actual-harm citations
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • it has 2 actual-harm citations
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1905 E Huebbe Pkwy · (608) 364-2200 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
2149 Prairie Ave · (608) 362-1767 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1827 Prairie Ave · (608) 362-1950 · Call to confirm hours
Park
2201 Skyline Dr · (608) 364-2890 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
1850 E Cranston Rd · (608) 362-3607

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased9.1%16.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.1%5.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%2.1%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.2%2.7%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.1%5.7%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.9%3.3%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened4.5%18.4%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication12.0%16.9%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.3%5.0%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control27.3%24.6%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table24.7%15.8%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication4.2%1.2%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.7%82.2%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission15.8%23.1%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit19.7%15.5%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.461.661.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.442.291.80better

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.

46.7% 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 103 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

46.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
81.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.28U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 81.2% 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 69 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF46.7%CMS range 38.6–54.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.8%CMS range 7.3–15.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge81.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge62.3%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge52.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge94.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay1.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened2.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.8%CMS range 3.3–12.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.421.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.70
RN hours/ resident / day
0.38
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.69
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.78
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.48
RN hoursweekends
37.3%
Total nursing turnover
23.1%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 77.4 residents a day — about 65% occupied, or roughly 43 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.78 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.69 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 2.35 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.95 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% 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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-12)
0
at the previous standard inspection (2024-09-25)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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 · G2025-11-25 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure each resident receives care, consistent with professional standards of practice (SOP), to prevent pressure injuries (PI) and each resident with PIs receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional SOP, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new injuries from developing in 2 of 3 sampled residents (R1 and R6). (R6 is being cited at actual harm/isolated).R6 was identified to be at risk for PI development and re-developed a stage IV PI. Observations were made of PI interventions not being used as intended. Wound assessments were not completed weekly, and treatments were not completed as ordered. R6 re-developed a stage IV PI which deteriorated.R1's PI was not staged accurately. R1 did not have PI treatments completed as ordered. This is evidenced by:The facility's policy Wound Care Program, undated, includes: All residents admitted to our care will be comprehensively assessed for risk of and/or current…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2025-11-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure a resident's environment remained free of accidents and hazards for 1 of 3 residents (R3) reviewed for falls. R3 had a comprehensive care plan for being a high fall risk upon his admission on [DATE]. R3 experienced four falls at the facility since his admission. On 9/3/25, R3 experienced an unwitnessed fall without major injury. On 9/14/25, R3 experienced an unwitnessed fall with a subsequent left mandibular (lower bone of jaw) fracture. On 10/7/25, R3 experienced an unwitnessed fall without major injury. On 10/11/25, R3 experienced an unwitnessed fall with a subsequent left tenth rib fracture. R3's comprehensive care plan included interventions of having a urinal at bedside, a reacher and a call light within reach. Observations were made of R3 not having these interventions at bedside.Evidenced by:The facility policy entitled, Falling Star Policy, dated 11/2024, states, in part: The purpose of the Falling Star Program is to…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2026-02-12 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespread
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives food that is palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature affecting 4 out of 5 units with the potential to affect all 80 residents (R) residing in the facility. Six residents voiced concerns over hot foods being served cold. (R29, R32, R9, R25, R2, and R76) 2 of 2 test trays were observed to be served at non-desirable temperatures. Evidenced by: The facility policy Food Preparation and Service Policy revised 8/25, states in part: . Thermal cooking temperatures for ground meat is 155 degrees. Fresh, frozen, or canned vegetables are cooked to holding temperature of 135 degrees. Previously cooked food is reheated to an internal temperature of 165 degrees for at least 15 seconds. Example 1 On 02/10/2026 at 9:16 AM Surveyor interviewed R76 during the initial screening. R76 resides on Skyline hallway. R76 indicated that his food was sometimes hot, but mostly not because they do the dining room first then the rooms. Example 2 On 02/10/2026 at 9:27 AM Surveyor interviewed R2…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-02-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain a safe and sanitary environment in which food is prepared, stored, and distributed. This has the potential to affect all 80 residents who reside in the facility. Surveyor observed food in circulation that was opened and undated or expired.Facility failed to have a system for manually monitoring the internal temperature of the dishwasher. This is evidenced by: Example 1 (Food dating)FDA Food Code, 2017, include: . Refrigeration Requirements Refrigeration times and temperatures to inhibit C. botulinum and L. monocytogenes must be based on laboratory inoculation study data or follow one of the ROP methods in Section 3-502.12 which specifies the time and temperature combinations. The . package must be marked with a use-by date within either the manufacturer's labeled use-by date or as determined by the laboratory data, whichever comes first . Labeling - Use-by date The shelf life of ROP foods is based on storage temperature for a certain time and other intrinsic factors of the food (pH, aw, cured with salt…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
    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 did not ensure that pain management is provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 2 Residents (R) reviewed for Pain (R1) R1 voiced concerns regarding his pain regime not being effective. R1's MAR (Medication Administration Record) indicated that R1 has pain ratings of 0 out of 10 while R1 indicates he is never lower than a 4 out of 10. R1's Comprehensive Care Plan does not contain goals or interventions related to pain management.Evidenced by:Facility policy, titled Pain Management, reviewed 5/25/25, includes, in part: (The facility) ensures that pain management is provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences.In order to help a resident maintain or attain his/her highest…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-06 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolated
    Provide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
    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 did not ensure that sufficient nursing staff was provided to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident (R) for 2 of 6 residents reviewed (R3 and R4). The facility assessment indicates a staffing plan that requires 4 licensed nurses on the Day shift, 2-4 licensed nurses on the Evening shift, and 2 licensed nurses on the Night shift. The plan also requires a direct care staff, indicated to be a total of licensed or certified staff, ratio of 1:16-18 on Day shift, 1:16-18 on Evening shift, and 1:20 ratio on Night shift. From 12/23/25 - 1/4/25, the facility had multiple shifts below the facility assessment's required staffing ratio. R3 voiced concerns about being left on the commode too long and that wait times are too long when using the call light. R4 voiced concerns about staff not having enough help, that all the time there is only 1 CNA for 24-25 residents, she has to wait a long time.…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-06 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    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 did not provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident for 1 (R3) of 6 residents reviewed for medication errors. R3 did not receive her ordered Potassium Gluconate (Mineral supplement) on 12/10/25, 12/11/25, 12/12/25, 12/13/25, 12/14/25, and 12/15/25. R3 also did not receive her ordered Calcium and Vitamin D3 (supplement) on 12/11/25, 12/12/25, 12/14/25,12/15/25, 12/16/25, 12/17/25, 12/18/25, 12/19/25, 12/20/25, and 12/22/25. Both supplements were not given as ordered due to the medication being unavailable in the facility. This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled, Medication Error Identification and Prevention, dated 03/25, states, in part: . When a medication error occurs, the Charge Nurse must be notified immediately. A nursing assessment of the resident must take place immediately to ensure that any…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-12-21 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    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, record review, and review of the admission Agreement, the facility failed to ensure that 3 of 5 sampled residents (R1, R2, and R3) were provided with choices regarding baths/showers. R1, R2, and R3 were not offered choices regarding the frequency of showers, and each received one shower per week according to the facility shower schedule. R1, R2, and R3 did not receive an adequate number of showers to meet their needs. Findings include: During an interview on 12/21/23 at 7:23 PM, NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator) stated the facility did not have a policy for resident choice/choices; however, there was some information in the admission Agreement. The facility's undated admission Agreement states, Each resident is treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of dignity and individuality .Each resident is encouraged and assisted, throughout the period of stay, to exercise rights .and to this end may voice grievances and recommend changes in policies and services to facility staff…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-12-21 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolated
    Provide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    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, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 sampled residents (R2) with an urostomy had their urostomy bag stored in a sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination and the potential spread of infection. Findings include: Review of the Pouch Changes-Colostomy, Urostomy, and Ileostomy Policy dated 10/2023 revealed, Urostomy - a stoma for the urinary system used in cases where long-tern drainage of urine through the bladder and urethra is not possible . items soiled with urine or fecal matter (i.e urostomy bags or tubing) must be handled so as to prevent contamination of the environment with urine or feces. Such items must be placed in closed containers . R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) of the bladder and urinary tract infection (UTI). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 10/13/23 revealed R2 had a BIMS of 14, which indicated R2 was…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-06-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This has the potential to affect all 77 residents residing at the facility. Surveyor observed walk-in freezer to have water dripping from ceiling, chunks of ice on a box of food, chunks of ice around the freezer door, and ice chips on the floor. Surveyor observed the freezer thermometer to read 25 degrees Fahrenheit. Surveyor observed an open blue bag of broccoli, out of its original packaging, with no label or date. The bag had ice chunks in it. Surveyor observed a bag of biscuits with no date. Surveyor observed a package of hot dogs, out of its original packaging, with no label or date. Surveyor observed microwave to have a black spot on the top of the microwave. Surveyor observed food splatters and crumbs in microwave. Evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Food Receiving and Storage, states, in part: . Policy Statement- Foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-06-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure it maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infections. The facility does not have a water management plan that identifies all areas where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens can grow and spread. This had the potential to affect all 77 residents (R) in the facility. The facility's water management plan did not identify/assess through text and flow diagrams areas where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens can grow and spread. CNA C (Certified Nursing Assistant) did not follow appropriate infection control procedures to prevent the spread of infection. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Water Management Policy, with a Reviewed/Revised date of 4/2023, indicates, in part: Policy: It is the policy of [NAME] Lake Healthcare at…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-29 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a resident who requires two-person assist for transfers, transfer safely to prevent accidents for 3 out of 23 residents reviewed for accidents. (R62, R3, R66) R62 indicated there are times she is transferred by one staff and R62's care plan indicates she is a two-person transfer assist. R3 indicated there are times she is transferred by one staff and R3's care plan indicates she is a two-person transfer assist. R66 uses a full body lift and facility staff transfer with one staff not two. Evidenced by: The facility policy, Safe Resident Handling/Transfer Policy, dated 2/23, states, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents are handled and transferred safely to prevent or minimize risks for injury and provide and promote a safe, secure and comfortable experience for the resident while keeping the employees safe in accordance with current standards and guidelines .Compliance Guidelines: .4. Mechanical lifts may…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-06-29 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure a resident who requires BiPAP respiratory support was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 1 residents (R62) reviewed with BiPAP. R62 indicated to Surveyor it took over an hour and a half on 6/23/23 for staff to assist R62 with BI-PAP machine. R62 indicated she eventually had to call the facility to receive assistance. Evidenced by: The facility policy, ADL Care Sheet Policy, dated 4/23, states, in part: Policy .utilizes ADL care sheets to communicate resident care needs and preferences with nursing staff .The ADL care sheet is based on a collection of data, including but not limited to the resident's comprehensive assessment and is consistent with the resident's needs and preferences Procedure .ADL care sheets include pertinent information for staff to utilize in an easily accessed form to deliver resident care needs. ADL…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2026-01-06 · tag F0732 — widespread
    Post nurse staffing information every day.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure staff postings were accurate which has the potential to affect 80 out of 80 residents residing at the facility. Review of staffing schedules and required staff postings revealed discrepancies between the documents. The total number of staff hours worked was not listed on the documents for licensed and non-licensed staff directly responsible for resident care each shift. This is evidenced by: Surveyor reviewed the schedules and staff postings from 12/24/25 through 1/4/26 and noted the following inaccuracies: None of the postings contained the total number of hours worked, only the actual hours worked for nurses and CNAs. Under the section titled, Staffing Total, the number of staff at each license or certification level is listed but not the total hours worked by that license or certification level. On 1/6/26 at 4:10 PM, Surveyor asked DON B if the staff postings should match the staff schedule. DON B indicates, yes.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to AUTUMN LAKE HEALTHCARE — 59 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.5+0.5 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.4-0.4 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.3-0.3 vs chain
The other 58 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
1 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Crystal SpringsElkins, WV 1 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Glen BurnieGlen Burnie, MD 1 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At HomewoodBaltimore, MD 1 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Long GreenBaltimore, MD 1 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare at GreenfieldMilwaukee, WI 1 of 5Nella's At Autumn Lake HealthcareElkins, WV 2 of 5Ashbrook Care & Rehabilitation CenterScotch Plains, NJ 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Arlington WestBaltimore, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Ballenger CreekFrederick, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Baltimore WashingtonGlen Burnie, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At BridgeparkBaltimore, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At CatonsvilleCatonsville, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Glade ValleyWalkersville, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Loch RavenBaltimore, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At MadisonMadison, CT 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Memorial BridgePenns Grove, NJ 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At NorwalkNorwalk, CT 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At OverleaBaltimore, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At PikesvillePikesville, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At RuxtonTowson, MD 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Salem CountySalem, NJ 2 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At SouthgateCarneys Point, NJ 2 of 5King David Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterBaltimore, MD 2 of 5The Subacute At Autumn Lake HealthcareVoorhees, NJ 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Alice ManorBaltimore, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Calvert ManorRising Sun, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Chesapeake WoodsCambridge, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Chevy ChaseChevy Chase, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Patuxent RiverLaurel, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Perring ParkwayBaltimore, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At RiverviewEssex, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Silver SpringSilver Spring, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Spa CreekAnnapolis, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At Summit ParkCatonsville, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At VinelandVineland, NJ 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At VoorheesVoorhees, NJ 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare At West HartfordWest Hartford, CT 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare Post-Acute Care CenterBaltimore, MD 3 of 5Autumn Lake Healthcare at OceanviewOcean View, NJ 3 of 5Cornell Hall Care & Rehabilitation CenterUnion, NJ

Showing 40 of 58; lowest-rated first.

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
A&R STERN FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF62%since 02/01/2019
DAVIS, YEHOSHUAIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF13%since 02/01/2019
GLUCK, RIVKAIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF20%since 02/01/2019
STERN, ARYEHIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2019
BELOIT REHAB REALTY LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2019
SCHWARTZ, MARKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 02/01/2019
TOLENTINO, ANNABELLEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2019
VIKEN, SUSANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2019
ACCURATE STAFFING LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2019
BRAND SONNENSCHINE LLPOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2019

CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$10.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+10.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.0M
Related-party expense11% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 67%Medicare 13%Other / private 20%

This home reported $1.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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

$318per resident / day
operating cost
$9,666per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$356per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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 WI

Paying with Medicaid

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 Wisconsin Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Wisconsin
$10,646/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$12,319/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,540/mo
Assisted living

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 525663. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-12, 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.

What to do next