800 Nw 95th Street, Miami, FL 33150 · Miami-Dade County · (305) 836-1550
120 certified beds, about 118 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1996
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 105903 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 9, 2026, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Florida average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
None of its 37 health citations since June 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.51 hours per resident per day, against 3.82 across Florida and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.70 of those hours.
43.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Florida average 41.4%).
CMS links it to Excelsior Care Group, an affiliated group of 33 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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed it was determined that the facility did not appropriately maintain the Advance Directives for one (101) out of four sampled residents receiving hospice services. Resident # 101's medical record included a signed Do Not Resuscitate form, a physician's order for Full Code and a signed Advanced Directive Acknowledgment form indicating Full Code. There were 119 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure privacy of confidential information on two (medication carts 400/500 and 100) out of five medication carts and during medication administration for one (Resident #32) out of five sampled residents as evidenced by staff left medication bingo card with resident's medical information visible unattended on top of the unattended 400/500 medication cart. Paper census with residents' pictures and medical information visible left unattended on the 100-medication cart and Staff observed administering medications to Resident #32 in the hallway in front of the nursing station. There were 119 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility inaccurately coded the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (Resident #128) out of three residents closed records reviewed. Staff coded Resident #128, who had expired at the facility, as having been hospitalized in the Minimum Data Set (MDS). At the time of the survey, 119 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility's staff failed to implement an oxygen care plan for two (Resident #124 and Resident #13) out of two sampled oxygen dependent residents. Resident #124 and Resident #13 oxygen was being delivered above the prescribed rate. There were 119 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility did not update the Advanced Directive Care Plan for one (Resident #101) out of four sampled residents who were receiving hospice services. Resident #101's current care plan did not reflect the resident's Advanced Directive for Full Code documented on the Advance Directive form signed by Resident 101 upon reentry to facility. There were 119 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, it was determined that the facility did not consistently maintain an environment free of accident hazards in one of two soiled utility rooms and one of three housekeeping carts. Staff were observed on two occasions failing to secure the soiled utility room door, which housed biohazardous and sharp materials. Additionally, staff were observed twice leaving a housekeeping cart open, with chemicals visible and accessible. These practices presented potential risks to the 119 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records reviewed and interviews the facility staff did not properly position an indwelling urinary tubing to facilitate the flow of urine for one (Resident #101) out of two sampled residents with an indwelling urinary catheter. Loops in Resident #101's indwelling catheter tubing prevented urine from flowing freely, which increased the resident's risk for catheter-associated urinary tract infections and other serious medical issues. At the time of the survey, four residents with indwelling urinary catheters resided in the facilityThe
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was delivered at the prescribed rate for two (Resident #124 and Resident #13) out of two sampled oxygen dependent residents. The oxygen flowmeters indicated Resident #124 and Resident #13 oxygen was being administered above the prescribed level. There were 119 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to properly store medications and biologics for two (#132, #116) out of seven sampled residents as evidenced by 1. an observation of two medicated inhalers on the side table of Resident#132. 2. Two observations of a medicated lotion on the nightstand of Resident#116. There were 119 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for two (Resident #8 and Resident #101) out of two sampled residents. 1) Resident #8 medical record contained documentation that an ordered medication was not administered and facility had documentation that the medication was administered. 2) Resident #101's medical record contained a signed DNR form and care plan. However, upon reentry the signed Advance Directive acknowledgment form indicated Resident #101 expressed wishes to be full code. There were 119 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to collaborate and coordinate with hospice representative for one (Resident #101) out of one sampled resident receiving hospice services as evidenced by: facility staff failed to obtain and keep hospice nursing notes in the hospice folder for Resident #101 since March 2026 when Resident #101 received a physician order for hospice services. There were four residents receiving hospice care residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Activities (QAPI/QAA) failed to demonstrate an effective plan of action to correct repeated deficiencies in the problem area as evidenced by repeated deficient practices for F761; failed to properly store and label medications during medication administration, F689; failed to prevent accident hazards, F690; failed to ensure a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter received care to prevent infection and F867; QAPI/QAA improvement activities. These repeated deficient practices have the potential to affect the 119 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance service to maintain a sanitary, safe, orderly, and comfortable interior for the first and second (2/2/) residential living floors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility's menu failed to meet the nutritional needs for 28 facility residents (included Sampled Resident's #21, #57, #65, #69, #76, #97, #102 and #140) residents with physician ordered Dysphagia Advanced/Dysphagia Mechanical Soft, and 9 facility resident's (included Sampled Resident's #53, #58, #59, and #95) with physician ordered Dysphagia Pureed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to prepare foods by methods that conserve nutritive value, palatable flavor and appearance for Dysphagia Mechanically Altered Diet, Mechanical Soft Diet, Dysphagia Pureed Diet, and Regular Diet .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to prepare food in a Mechanically Altered and Pureed Form designed to meet resident needs for 28 (Includes Sampled Resident's # 21, #24, #57, #65, #69, #76, #97, #102, and #04) physician ordered Mechanically Altered Diet, and 9 (Includes Sampled Resident's #53, #58, 59, and #95) physician ordered Dysphagia Pureed Diet.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a therapeutic diet of Lactose Intolerance/No Dairy was obtained from the attending physician and followed by the facility for 1 (Resident #324) of 5 residents sample for nutrition review.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for potentially 104 of the 116 residents who eat foods by mouth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly that potentially effected all of the 116 facility residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review the facility failed to assure services being provided to residents meet professional standards of quality for 1 of 4 of residents observed during med pass (Resident #54).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure resident with indwelling urinary catheter receives care to prevent to prevent infection and to provide nephrology consult appointment for 1 of 1 resident observed for catheter care (Resident #117).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to monitor food and supplement intake for 1 (Resident #69) of 7 residents reviewed for nutrition and failed to ensure accurate weights for new admission for 1 (Resident # 323) of 7 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure physician's orders for tube feeding were followed for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for tube feeding (Residents #18 and #85)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review the facility failed provide pharmaceutical services to ensure the accurate administering and documenting of medications to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 resident reviewed for medication administration observation (Resident #54) and for 2 of 9 residents reviewed for controlled medications (Residents #6, and #54), and failed to ensure a discontinued medication was removed from the med cart for 1 of 9 residents reviewed during med reconciliation review (Resident #6)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not 5% or greater. The medication error rate was 28% with 7 medication errors identified while observing a total of 25 opportunities, affecting Resident #54.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview the facility failed to ensure all disposed medications are stored in a secure manner for 1 of 4 residents observed during med administration (Resident #54).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Activities (QAPI/QAA) failed to demonstrate effective plan of actions were implemented to correct identified quality deficiencies in the problem area as evidenced by repeated deficient practices for F584, safe, clean, comfortable, homelike environment; F693, tube feeding management; F814, dispose garbage and refuse properly; and F867, QAPI/QAA improvement activities. These repeated deficient practices have the potential to affect all 116 residents residing in the facility at the time of this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and a secured environment for one (Resident #1) out of three sampled residents. This deficient practice enabled resident #1 to exit the facility at 4:30 PM on 10/04/23, undetected.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide accommodation of needs for 3 out of 30 sampled residents (Resident #359 for dialysis machine in the bathroom, Resident #62 for the broken call light and Resident #55 unable to use his bathroom). This has the possibility to affect those residents who share a room with a dialysis patient as well as the 109 residents at the facility at the time of this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for three residents (Resident # 12, the resident's diagnosis was coded wrong, Resident # 75, the MDS was coded wrong for wander guard not in use, Resident # 29, the discharge status was coded wrong), out of 30 sampled resident's at the time of survey. This deficiency has the potential to affect 109 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician's order for changing the midline (intravenous(IV) catheter) dressing for one (Resident #77) out of one resident's who was receiving intravenous therapy as evidenced by the midline dressing date being over 7 days old.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow prescribed doctor's orders for enteral feedings for three out of 22 residents receiving enteral feedings (Residents #67, #310 and #311) as evidenced by the enteral feeding rates were incorrect. This practice has the potential to affect 22 residents who receive tube feeding at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident # 209) out of 23 residents receiving oxygen treatments, had a doctor's order for oxygen therapy before administration. The facility failed to follow doctor's orders as evidenced by one resident (Resident # 209) out of 23 residents receiving oxygen therapy, the doctor's prescribed 2 Liters per Minute (LPM) and resident #209 was observed to be receiving 1.5 LPM of oxygen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, Interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a Registered Nurse (RN) was providing services at least 8 consecutives hours a day, 7 days a week. This had the potential to affect the 109 residents who resided in the facility at the time of this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to assure the garbage and refuse area was clean and discarded furniture were properly disposed and contained on the facility grounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and Interview, the facility failed to demonstrate effective plan of actions were implemented to correctly identify quality deficiencies in the problem area related to repeated deficient practices for F641 Accuracy of Assessments, F695 Respiratory/Tracheostomy Care and Suctioning, and F908 Essential Equipment, Safe Operating Condition. This practice has the potential to increase the risk of negative resident outcomes and to affect all 109 residents residing in the facility at the time of this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure essential equipment was in proper working condition for two out of six laundry machines. This practice has the potential to affect 109 resident's residents at this facility at the time of survey.
4 fire safety citations on file: 1 on April 9, 2026, 1 on September 26, 2024, 2 on June 8, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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 | Florida | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.51 | 3.82 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.26 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.17 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.65 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.7% | 41.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 54.8% | 46.0% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.93 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 3.62 on weekdays and 3.26 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.71 in April to June 2025 to 3.51 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 | 3.51 | 0.70 | 3.62 | 3.26 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 118 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.52 | 0.75 | 3.60 | 3.30 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 114 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.60 | 0.81 | 3.69 | 3.35 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 112 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.71 | 0.79 | 3.85 | 3.35 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 115 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Florida, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.76 | 0.70 | 3.90 | 3.44 | 1.1% | 0.2% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $17.33 to $20.34 | 96,960 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.70 | $28.14 to $31.11 | 38,620 |
| Registered nurses | $40.48 | $37.82 to $48.64 | 229,940 |
| 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 | Florida | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.2 | 8.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.9 | 9.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.3 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.6 | 8.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.6 | 26.1 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.6 | 9.1 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Azure Shores Rehab's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (24.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
24.6% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Florida: 169 better, 109 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. 56 eligible stays.
10.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Florida: 2 better, 35 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. 54 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Florida: 6 better, 21 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. 22 eligible stays.
46.8% this home
Median of homes: Florida55.1% · 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. 124 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Florida0.6% · 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. 245 residents counted.
1.9% this home
Median of homes: Florida1.3% · 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. 245 residents counted.
83.0% this home
Median of homes: Florida97.7% · 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. 53 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: FRANCO SNF OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Excelsior Care Group, a group of 33 nursing homes averaging 2.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Franco SNF Operations Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 09/03/2021 |
| Sunshine SNF Group LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 09/30/2021 |
| Leifer, Joel | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Rubin, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/06/2023 | |
| Rubin, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/06/2023 | |
| Silva, Lesly | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/22/2025 |
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 Florida. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.