Home / Florida / Port Charlotte
4033 Beaver Lane, Port Charlotte, FL 33952 · Charlotte County · (941) 625-3200
164 certified beds, about 155 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1980
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 105363 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 30, 2025, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Florida average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 27 health citations since May 2021, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (4 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $274,053 in the last three years; the largest was $265,265, and the latest is dated January 30, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.62 hours per resident per day, against 3.82 across Florida and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.75 of those hours.
39.9% 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 27 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of facility's policy and procedure and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the safe storage of medications to prevent unauthorized use for 1 (Resident #875) of 3 residents' rooms observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on family and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to protect residents' rights to be free from neglect. The facility failed to appropriately monitor the urinary output after insertion of an indwelling urinary catheter and failed to monitor the resident's change of condition for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents with urinary catheter reviewed. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate). Resident #1 had an indwelling urinary catheter (catheter inserted in the bladder to drain urine). On 1/28/25 at approximately 5:30 a.m., Resident #1's urinary catheter was changed. There was no documentation Resident #1 was monitored to ensure the catheter was properly inserted and draining urine. On 1/28/25 at approximately 4:30 p.m., Resident #1 had no urinary output. The urinary catheter was removed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility's policies and procedures, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure Licensed Nurses had the skills set to safely care for residents with indwelling urinary catheters, including inserting the catheters, monitor residents, recognize significant changes in condition and complications from urinary catheters requiring immediate physician notification and interventions to prevent further deterioration. On 1/28/25 at approximately 5:30 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff B changed Resident #1's urinary catheter and did not ensure free flow of urine to verify the tip of the catheter was in the appropriate location in the bladder. On 1/28/25, Unit Manager LPN Staff D did not monitor Resident #1 from 7:00 a.m., to 2:00 p.m. to ensure the urinary catheter was functioning and draining urine. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility's Administration failed to utilize resources effectively to ensure nursing staff were trained, knowledgeable and competent to prevent the neglect of residents with urinary diagnoses, including insertion of urinary catheters and monitoring for complications from the urinary catheters. Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old-male admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate). Resident #1 had an indwelling urinary catheter (catheter inserted in the bladder to drain urine). On 1/28/25 at 5:30 a.m., nursing staff changed Resident #1's urinary catheter and failed to ensure the catheter was properly inserted and draining. Nursing staff neglected to notify the physician until 1/28/25 at approximately 4:30 p.m. that Resident #1 had no urinary output since the catheter was inserted. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement procedures to identify risk for elopement and adequately monitor 1 (Resident #1) of 1 cognitively impaired resident reviewed who left the facility without staff knowledge.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident admitted with a urinary catheter was assessed for removal of the catheter as soon as possible, received services to prevent urinary tract infections, and had the proper securing device to prevent friction and movement at the insertion site for 1 (Resident #305) of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility's policies and procedures, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff followed safety precautions in the care plan while providing care to prevent avoidable fall and fall related fracture for 1 (Resident #50) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy and procedure and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain urinary catheters in a sanitary manner for 4 (Residents #61, # 249, #252, and #305) of 4 residents observed with urinary catheters. The facility also failed to ensure intravenous (IV) access devices were dated and secured properly for 2 (Resident #252, and #305) of 3 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, resident and staff interviews and review of facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain personal hygiene for 2 (Residents #252 and #61) of 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the facility policy and procedures, resident and staff interviews, and review of the clinical record, the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range of motion receives appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion (ROM) for 1 (Resident #61) of 1 resident reviewed for limitation in ROM.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, resident, resident representative and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain personal hygiene for 3 (Residents #999, #900, and #899) of 4 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, resident, resident representative and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure 3 (Residents #899, #799 and #75) of 4 sampled residents at risk for compromised nutrition received dietary supplements as ordered to maintain acceptable parameters of nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of manufacturer recommendations, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to maintain 1 of 2 sit to stand lifts used to transfer residents in safe operating condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of the facility's policies, staff, and resident interview the facility failed to have documentation of analysis of falls to implement appropriate interventions to prevent avoidable falls and fall related injuries for 3 residents (#17, #48, #76) of 4 residents reviewed who sustained falls at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record, review of policies and procedures, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician of a significant weight loss for 1 (Resident #50) of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to ensure timely report of injuries of unknown origin to the State Survey Agency for 1 (Resident #84) of 4 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to have documentation of investigation of an injury of unknown origin for 1 (Resident #84) of 4 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of policies and procedures, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to monitor the weight and implement intervention to prevent ongoing weight loss for 1 (Resident #50) of 4 sampled residents identified with significant weight loss. Resident #50 experienced a 7.6% significant weight loss in 46 days and continued to lose weight without appropriate interventions and monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure ongoing monitoring for complications, coordination and response to the dialysis center's multiple requests for weight monitoring for 1 (Resident #96) of 1 sampled resident receiving dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy and procedures, staff and resident interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 3 (Residents #48, #71, #96 and #101) of 38 residents with bed rails were assessed for alternative interventions prior to the use of bed rails. The facility failed to ensure they had informed the residents and/or their representative of the risks and benefits of bed rails and obtain an informed consent prior to use of the bed rails.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records, review of facility policies and procedures, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the safe storage of medications for 2(Resident #33 and #78) of 2 residents observed with medications at the bedside. The facility failed to dispose of expired medications in 1 medication cart (Unit A-1) of 4 medication carts observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a safe, sanitary and clean environment for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to have documentation of an evaluation for self-administration of medications and a physician's order to keep medications at bedside for 1 (Resident #68) of 6 residents reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to provide the resident and the representative, if applicable, with a written summary of the baseline care plan which included initial goals, a summary of current medications and dietary instructions for 2 (Resident #310 and #313) of 6 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. This has the potential to cause confusion as to the care expected to be provided by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to have documentation of a fall investigation to ensure adequate preventive interventions for 1 (Resident #310) of 2 residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to maintain urinary catheters in a safe and sanitary manner for 2 (Resident #25 and Resident #104) of 2 residents sampled with indwelling urinary catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was in place prior to delivery of oxygen therapy to 1 (Resident #38) of 1 resident reviewed for oxygen therapy.
2 fire safety citations on file: 2 on December 1, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 30, 2025 | Fine | $8,788 |
| January 30, 2025 | Fine | $265,265 |
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 | Florida | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.62 | 3.82 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.38 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.26 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.61 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.9% | 41.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 51.4% | 46.0% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.72 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 3.72 on weekdays and 3.38 on weekends, 9% 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 3.54 in April to June 2025 to 3.62 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 | 3.62 | 0.75 | 3.72 | 3.38 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 155 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.59 | 0.82 | 3.67 | 3.36 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 151 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.59 | 0.81 | 3.68 | 3.38 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 154 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.54 | 0.84 | 3.63 | 3.32 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 153 |
| 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 | 6.2 | 8.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.3 | 9.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.1 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.3 | 8.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.5 | 26.1 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.7 | 9.1 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Charlotte Bay Rehab and Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (38.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
38.7% 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. 158 eligible stays.
12.8% 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. 191 eligible stays.
8.9% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 134 eligible stays.
47.5% 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. 198 residents counted.
0.3% 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. 299 residents counted.
1.2% 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. 299 residents counted.
95.1% 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. 82 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: PORT CHARLOTTE CARE CENTER 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Port Charlotte Care Member LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 10/07/2022 |
| Flnho Capital Group LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10% | 10/08/2022 |
| Soltis, Erin | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 11/01/2022 | |
| Leifer, Joel | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/08/2022 |
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.