Home / Illinois / Palos Heights
7850 West College Drive, Palos Heights, IL 60463 · Cook County · (708) 361-6990
184 certified beds, about 156 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 145607 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 18, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Illinois average is 12.6, the national average 9.2).
Of 42 health citations since September 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $22,645 in the last three years; the largest was $12,438, and the latest is dated July 3, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.69 hours per resident per day, against 3.45 across Illinois and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.90 of those hours.
52.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Illinois average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Legacy Healthcare, an affiliated group of 95 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 42 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2 of 3 residents (R2, R3) reviewed for skin and wound care. Specifically, facility staff failed to provide incontinence care and skin monitoring as outlined in the residents' established care plans. This resulted in residents remaining in soiled environments for over four hours, directly contradicting the care plan interventions designed to maintain skin integrity and prevent wound contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 2 of 3 residents (R2, R3) reviewed for wound care in the sample of 3 received the necessary treatment and services to maintain hygiene and prevent the risk of infection. Specifically, the facility failed to check and change residents for incontinence for over 4 hours, resulting in dried fecal matter remaining on wound dressings prior to treatments.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately initiate chest compressions and call 911 for one full code resident (R1) who was found unresponsive without a pulse. This affected one of three residents (R1) reviewed for CPR.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow policy procedures, failed to ensure that medication was not left at bedside, failed to ensure that medications were not accessible to unauthorized individuals, failed to maintain the medication refrigerator temperature within range, failed to ensure that multidose medication was dated when opened, and failed to discard multi-dose medications as directed for three of 53 residents (R85, R138, R154) in the sample. The facility failed to ensure that (3rd floor) refrigerated medications were stored at the appropriate temperature. This failure has the potential to affect 54 (3rd floor) residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to comply with proper food storage and sanitation protocols; failed to ensure residents' food items were dated upon opening; failed to properly contain and cover residents' food after opening; failed to ensure the scoops for bulk food items were stored appropriately; failed to limit storage in the dry food storage room/pantry exclusively to residents' items; and failed to utilize unexpired sanitizing test strips. These deficiencies have the potential to impact the health and safety of all 144 residents residing at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the outside dumpster was closed. These failures have the potential to affect all 144 residents residing at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow policy procedures, failed to ensure staff were aware they cannot borrow resident medications to give to other residents, failed to ensure residents were made aware when prescribed medications were not administered, failed to ensure that (over the counter) prescribed medication was purchased/available, and/or failed to ensure that medications were administered within regulatory requirements for four of 53 residents (R61, R85, R119, R154) in the sample.
Inspectors wroteBased upon observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow policy procedures, failed to implement care plan interventions, failed to ensure that staff were aware of resident required LALM (Low Air Loss Mattress) settings, failed to ensure that LALM settings were correct while in use, failed to ensure that the LALM device was clean and free of debris, failed to provide a pressure reducing cushion on the wheelchair, failed to ensure that layers of linen were not beneath residents during LALM use, failed to ensure that soiled dressings were changed timely, and failed to ensure that open wounds were covered with a dressing for five of 53 residents (R3, R11, R12, R115, R117) in the sample reviewed for pressure ulcer prevention.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow policy procedures, failed to follow physician orders, failed to ensure that humidification was provided when administering high flow oxygen, failed to date respiratory equipment, and failed to contain respiratory equipment in a bag after use for four of 53 residents (R10, R18, R38, R85) in the sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to conduct hand hygiene prior to passing meal trays. This failure has the potential to affect affected four residents (R67, R101, R111, and R129) reviewed for infection control on the sample of 53 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow policy procedures and failed to review/revise a comprehensive care plan for one of 53 residents (R64) in the sample reviewed for restorative care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow policy procedures, failed to ensure that staff were aware of resident required restorative devices, failed to include restorative devices in the care plan, failed to ensure that required devices were included in facility tasks, and failed to ensure that restorative devices were applied as directed for one of 53 residents (R64) in the sample reviewed for restorative care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement fall prevention measures as indicated on the care plan, failed to ensure bed alarms were in use, and failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent falls and prevent repeated falls. This failure affected 3 residents (R2, R4, R10) reviewed for falls in a sample of 53 residents. This failure resulted in R2 sustaining radial, ulnar, and femoral fractures due to an unwitnessed fall.1. R4's records show the following: R4 had unwitnessed falls on 9/2/25 and on 9/4/25 and was sent to the hospital for each fall. Face sheet shows diagnoses which include but are not limited to Dementia, History of Falling, Anxiety Disorder, Obesity, Encephalopathy, Gout, Polyosteoarthritis, and Leg Pain. MDS section GG dated 8/13/25 states R4 needs assistance for mobility/functional ability. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the enteral feeding pump was functioning properly, failed to follow physician orders, failed to provide enteral nutrition as directed, and failed to prevent weight loss for one of 53 residents (R10) in the sample reviewed for tube feeding management.
Inspectors wroteBased upon observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow policy procedures and failed to ensure that prescribed medications were available for one of 5 residents (R119) reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow policy procedures, failed to ensure that prescribed medications were available, failed to ensure that the correct medication was dispensed, and failed to ensure that unauthorized medications were not administered. There were three medication errors out of 25 opportunities, resulting in a 12% medication error rate. Two of five residents (R25, R119) in the medication administration sample were affected.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow policy procedures and failed to ensure that one of five residents (R25) reviewed for medication administration remained free from significant medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to implement intervention related to use of bed alarm; and failed to follow manufacturer's recommendation for safety use of reclining chair in preventing fall for one (R1) of three residents reviewed for accidents. This deficiency resulted in R1 who is cognitively impaired fell out of bed and sustained a large bruise on the left side of neck and jaw.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to follow their policy related to incontinence and perineal care for one (R1) of three residents reviewed for incontinence care. This failure resulted in R1 developing incontinence associated dermatitis (IAD) on the scrotal area.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure resident safety by failure to provide 2 persons assist when providing incontinence care. This failure resulted in resident (R61) to fall from bed required visit to emergency hospital for evaluation due to bruising, swelling and pain on forehead. The facility also failed to ensure fall preventive measures were being implemented for residents who are at high risk for falls. This deficiency affects five (R13, R33, R61, R105, R392) residents in the sample of 27 reviewed for Fall prevention program.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure, each resident's dignity was maintained by not placing the urinary catheter inside of his pants leg and securing it for 1 of 3 residents (R128) in a sample of 27 reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record the facility failed to follow their policy and procedures in providing safety during incontinence care by not providing 2 persons assist. The facility also failed to ensure reporting and documentation of the incident immediately in resident medical record. This deficient affects one (R61) of three residents reviewed for Quality of Care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure pain was thoroughly assessed and treated before, during and after surgical wound care for 1 of 4 resident's (R127) reviewed for pain management in a sample of 27.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices were followed when handling soiled linens/gown. This deficiency affects one (R60) of three residents in the sample of 27 reviewed for Infection control during ADL (Activity of Daily Living) care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to post an up-to-date and current daily nurse staffing information that readily accessible to the residents and visitors. This deficiency affects the entire residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent an accident by not ensuring R1 was adequately supervised based on his history of behaviors and accidents, mobility limitations, and health status which resulted in R1 self-transferring and sustaining multiple fractures. This failure applies to one (R1) of three residents reviewed for accidents/supervision.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedures for proper nursing care by not ensuring a resident who requires assistance with transfers was immediately assessed for injury after being found in an abnormal position and not ensuring the incident was immediately documented in the residents medical record and the physician and family were notified. This failure applies to one of three residents (R1) reviewed for quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide incontinence care with 2 hours for residents who were identified as dependent for staff assist for toileting/incontinence care. This affected four of four (R2, R5, R6 and R7) residents reviewed for incontinence care. This failure resulted in R2 being left soiled in urine for over fifteen hours and feeling drenched and disgusted. R5 being left soiled in urine for over eight hours feeling wet and cold with chills. R6 being left soiled in urine for sixteen hours and R7 being left soiled and saturated in urine with a strong ammonia smell for over eighteen hours. Findings Include: 1.) R2 was diagnosis with need assistance with personal care. Minimal data set section C (cognitive pattern) brief interview for mental status dated 7/25/24 documents a score of fifteen which indicates cognitively intact. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their skin care regimen and treatment formulary by not documenting and obtaining a physician order for a resident who was identified as high risk for skin breakdown. This affected one of three residents (R2) reviewed for non-pressure wound care. This failure resulted in R2 have two small pink opened circular areas on the inner right upper thigh and right posterior thigh. Findings Include: R2's Braden scale dated 9/5/24 documents: a score of sixteen which indicates at high risk for skin breakdown. Moisture: very moist skin is often, but not always moist. Linen must be changed at least once a shift. Friction and shear: Potential Problem: Moves feebly or requires minimum assistance. During a move skin probably slides to some extent against sheets, chair, restraints or other devices. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow one resident plan of care, who was identified as high risk for skin breakdown with a stage four and stage three pressure wounds by not following the wound practitioner's treatment orders and ensuring an air loss mattress was in place. This affected one of three residents (R3) reviewed for pressure sore prevention interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review; the facility failed to provide a safe environment by not adequately monitoring residents at risk for falls for 5 of 5 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) reviewed for falls; failed to follow facility policy of ensuring all staff were educated on residents at risk for falls and/or fall prevention program. This failure resulted in all five reviewed residents falling unsupervised.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were treated in a dignified manner for 5 of 7 residents (R4, R5, R6, R7, R9) reviewed for abuse/neglect in the sample 9.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from abuse for 1 of 7 residents (R2) reviewed for abuse in the sample of 9.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to have effective interventions in place to monitor/supervisor a resident identified to be high risk for falls. This affected one of four residents (R1) reviewed for fall prevention. This failure resulted in R1 falling from wheelchair on 12/31/23 while in dining/group room, R1 complained of right-hand pain. On 1/2/24 R1 Xray showed 5th metacarpal fracture with mild displacement, R1 sent to hospital for evaluation and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain dignity by having the catheter collection visible for one resident (R142) of 31 residents reviewed for dignity in the sample of 31.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to assess a resident for self-administration of nasal and oral medication that was kept at the bedside for 1 of 4 residents (R361) reviewed for self-administration of medications in a sample of (31).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to check the Low Air Loss mattress plugged in and functioning, failed follow manufacturer's recommendation in limiting the amount of layers on top of the mattress. This deficiency affects one (R40) of three residents in the sample of 31 reviewed for Pressure ulcer Prevention and Management.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide restorative nursing program to paraplegic resident for one (R1) of two residents reviewed for range of motion in a sample of 31.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure fall preventive interventions were being implemented to resident who is at high risk for falls. This deficiency affects one (R74) of three residents reviewed for Fall Prevention Program in the sample of 31.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure coordination of care and communication between hospice provider was in place for two (R49 and R74) of five residents reviewed for Hospice care in the sample of 31.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received the necessary care and services by not arranging transportation to important follow-up appointments following hospitalization. This applies to 1 of 15 resident (R5) reviewed for care and services in the sample of 15.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to monitor and assess R4's pressure injuries for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed for pressure in the sample of 15.
16 fire safety citations on file: 5 on November 1, 2024, 3 on December 29, 2023, 8 on March 2, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 3, 2025 | Fine | $12,438 |
| October 9, 2024 | Fine | $10,207 |
| October 9, 2024 | Payment Denial | 14 days from November 5, 2024 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Illinois | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.69 | 3.45 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.90 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.59 | 3.07 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.03 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.76 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.3% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 52.5% | 41.8% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 5.30 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.74 on weekdays and 3.59 on weekends, 4% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 21.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.91 in April to June 2025 to 3.69 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.69 | 0.90 | 3.74 | 3.59 | 21.2% | 0 of 90 | 156 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.95 | 0.94 | 3.97 | 3.89 | 14.4% | 0 of 92 | 130 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.94 | 0.96 | 4.00 | 3.77 | 23.1% | 0 of 92 | 144 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.91 | 0.94 | 3.96 | 3.77 | 28.2% | 0 of 91 | 146 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Illinois, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.26 | 0.65 | 3.40 | 2.92 | 5.4% | 0.6% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.10 | $18.95 to $23.26 | 68,640 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $36.06 | $30.57 to $38.25 | 17,440 |
| Registered nurses | $46.15 | $38.47 to $50.94 | 138,910 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Illinois | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 35.2 | 13.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.3 | 14.3 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.3 | 21.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.8 | 26.1 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.9 | 13.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avantara Palos Heights's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (58.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.2% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Illinois: 106 better, 85 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 665 eligible stays.
12.8% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Illinois: 2 better, 14 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 588 eligible stays.
7.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Illinois: 3 better, 10 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 411 eligible stays.
58.8% this home
Median of homes: Illinois50.0% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 267 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Illinois0.3% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 370 residents counted.
0.4% this home
Median of homes: Illinois1.5% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 370 residents counted.
99.6% this home
Median of homes: Illinois100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 243 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: PHE SKILLED NURSING FACILITY LLC. CMS links this home to Legacy Healthcare, a group of 95 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gpn Family Trust U/a/D 4/28/08 | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 60% | 02/01/2023 |
| Perkovic, Valerie | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Shabat, Menachem | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Legacy Healthcare Financial Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/01/2023 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Illinois. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.