1801 N Lake Mariam Dr, Winter Haven, FL 33884 · Polk County · (863) 293-1989
120 certified beds, about 100 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 105428 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 25, 2024, inspectors cited 36 health deficiencies (the Florida average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 61 health citations since November 2019, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (4 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $321,520 in the last three years; the largest was $296,449, and the latest is dated October 17, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.18 hours per resident per day, against 3.82 across Florida and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.39 of those hours.
46.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Florida average 41.4%).
CMS links it to Robert Schoenfeld, an affiliated group of 8 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 61 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to refund two (Residents #3 and #9) of three sampled residents within thirty days after discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed 1) to report abnormal radiology results to the provider and complete an assessment and change in condition for a resident with respiratory distress for one resident (#7) out of six residents sampled, 2) to ensure laboratory orders were entered in the electronic laboratory (lab) portal and completed as ordered for two residents (#7, #1) out of six residents sampled and 3) to ensure timely administration of an antibiotic for one resident (#1) out of three residents sampled. Resident #7's laboratory orders were not completed as ordered, the abnormal radiology results were not reported to the doctor, and an assessment and change in condition were not completed and Resident #7 suffered a cardiac arrest. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure laboratory orders were entered properly in the electronic medical record and electronic laboratory (lab) portal, for four (#7, #1, #8, #9) out of six residents sampled. Resident #7's labs were not completed as ordered and Resident #7 suffered a cardiac arrest This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury and/or death to residents and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on [DATE]. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on [DATE] and the scope and severity was reduced to a D after verification of removal of immediate jeopardy. Cross Reference F684.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility did not safeguard medical record information against unauthorized use and ensure residents' personal and medical records were communicated confidentially for one (Resident #1) out of four residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a safe an orderly discharge and appropriately document in the medical record the events and follow through of the discharge for one resident (#1) who was transferred to an inappropriate location following an emergent incident between Resident #1 and another resident of three residents reviewed for transfer and discharge rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident spaces, and resident equipment were clean/sanitary and maintained to include Soiled Air Conditioner unit filters; Soiled walls; Soiled ceiling tiles; Soiled bathroom equipment, Soiled walls and doorways on two of two floors and within two of four halls (100 and 200).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a copy of the transfer and discharge notice to the Office of the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman for one (#1) of three residents reviewed for transfer and discharge rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to protect residents' right to be free from sexual abuse by a resident. Three residents (#2, #4, #8) of five with physician-signed lack of capacity to consent documents experienced sexual abuse in the facility. Resident #1 had a documented history of inappropriately touching and attempting to kiss staff beginning August 25, 2023. The facility did not respond with interventions that prevented sexual abuse from occurring to vulnerable residents. On 9/5/23 Resident #4 was discovered naked in their room with another resident (Resident #1). On 3/29/24 staff observed a resident (Resident #7) removing his hand from Resident #8's pants. On 4/15/24 during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., shift staff observed Resident #1 masturbating while Resident #2 watched standing in his room's doorway. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards for 2 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards (Residents #25 and #53).
Inspectors wroteBased on record and policy review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure of a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 13 of 31 rooms on the 1st floor, 2 of 2 Shower Rooms on the 1st floor, 1 laundry area, and a pillar located in the Memory Care Unit Nursing Station.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two (Resident #6 and Resident #9) of three residents sampled for bedrail use and two (Resident #3 and Resident #6) of three residents sampled for unnecessary medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to update an Advance Directive care plan for 1 of 32 sampled residents reviewed for Advance Directives (Resident #57).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary medications for 1 of 5 residents sampled for unnecessary medications (Resident #20).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of and maintain garbage and refuse in a sanitary manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to maintain the medical records for 7 of 32 sampled residents, Resident #80, 88, 93, 153, 94, 57, and 34 in a manner that was complete, accurate, and systematically organized.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program.
Inspectors wrote3) On 01/22/24 at 7:30 AM, an initial tour was conducted of the residential rooms on the second floor. Resident #153 was observed in bed with the catheter bag on the floor (photographic evidence obtained). Resident #153 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a suprapubic catheter. 4) On 01/22/24 at 9:00 AM, Resident #155 was observed in bed being served breakfast. Staff L, a Licensed Practical Nurse, entered the room and gave Resident #155 an insulin injection into his left arm without wearing gloves. Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to provide a safe and sanitary environment for the laundry area, for 2 of 2 shower rooms located on the 1st floor; failed to ensure urinary catheter drainage bag was maintained off the floor for 1 sampled resident for catheter care (Resident #153); [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of offering/acceptance/declination of the pneumococcal vaccine for 4 out of 5 sampled residents reviewed for vaccines (Residents #9, #53, #69, and #94).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to have an effective pest control program.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to treat residents in a dignified manner during dining observations for 3 of 7 sampled residents reviewed for dignity, Residents #79, #40, and #25; and failed to provide timely grooming to preserve dignity, for 1 of 7 sampled residents, Resident #15, also reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure call lights remained in reach for 2 of 100 sampled residents observed during the initial screening process (Resident #58 and Resident #155).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide written notice to the resident or the resident's representative of a room change for 1 of 32 sampled residents reviewed for room changes (Resident #69).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement baseline care plans within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 1 of 1 sampled resident, reviewed for catheter care (Resident #153).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide fingernail grooming for 4 of 8 sampled residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care (Residents #53, #70, #79, and #76).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide toenail care for 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident #53) reviewed for Foot Care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to identify and treat the resident with hand contractors for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for range of motion (Resident #79).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to identify significant weight loss in a timely manner; and failed to provide nutritional intervention to prevent weight loss for 3 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for weight loss (Resident #55, Resident #57, and Resident #86).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for tube feedings, for 2 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for tube feedings (Resident #58 and Resident #34).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record and policy review, the facility failed to maintain respiratory equipment in a sanitary manner for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #58).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to assess residents for bedrail use for 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident #11) reviewed for bedrail use; and failed to follow recommendations of bedrail assessments for 2 of 32 sampled residents (Residents #58 and #153) reviewed for bedrail use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain the daily posted nurse staffing information, as observed during the survey week.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide physician ordered medications to one (Resident #3) of three residents sampled for pharmacy services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to preserve the nutritional value of food items in the puree diet. This had the potential to affect ten (10) of 10 residents who were on a puree diet.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide the appropriate orders for 3 of 32 sampled residents, for fluids, as prescribed by the attending physicians, Resident #74 and Resident #40; and failed to provide adequate hydration for Resident #53.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow the therapeutic diets as per physician's orders for 2 of the 32 sampled residents (Resident #86 and Resident #55).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food by professional standards for food service safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to administer the facility in a manner that enables the effective and efficient use of its resources.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to communicate effectively between the Administrator and the Governing Body regarding the overall management and operation of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to have an integrative care plan and effective communication between the facility and the hospice provider for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospice (Resident #40).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to monitor inspection of bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails as part of a regular maintenance program.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident room is equipped with a working toilet or located near an accessible toilet for 1 of 100 residents screened (Resident #53).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility needed to ensure adequate lighting in designated resident dining and activities rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to equip corridors with securely affixed handrails on 1 of 2 floors of the facility (the First floor).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record review and policy review, the facility failed to follow their smoking policy for 2 of 9 residents identified as smokers (Resident #15 and #48).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, policy reviews, and interviews the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment on one unit (first secured floor) out of two units affecting eight resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], #104, #106, #101, #111, #109, #108, #113, and #121) and three common areas (hallway, dining room and activity porch) for four of four days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to maintain and promote resident dignity for six residents (#150, #19, #94, #32, #33 and #28) related to: 1. Resident #150 was left with a large wrist band on his wrist that read, FALL RISK, 2. Staff ( A, D, and F) were observed talking on their electronic phone devices while providing care and services to four residents (#19, #94, #150, and #37), and 3. The facility failed to assist two residents (#33 and #28) timely during meal service for lunch, of a total of forty-four sampled residents during four of four days observed (10/5/2021, 10/6/2021, 10/7/2021, and 10/8/2021).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to implement the care plan for one (#43) out of twenty-two sampled residents that resided on the secured unit related to assessing the skin condition on a weekly basis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to provide adequate supervision of three residents (#21, #29 and #45) with a mechanically-altered diet and who have behavioral and/or cognition issues out of 22 residents residing a secured unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% related to four errors in twenty five opportunities for one resident (#17) out of seven residents sampled, resulting in a 16% medication error rate.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to implement an effective Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement plan of action to correct a deficiency cited during the annual recertification survey on 10/08/2021. The facility failed to ensure a medication administration error rate below 5%. A total of 12 administration opportunities were observed with 2 errors for 2 (Resident #4 and Resident #5) of 4 residents observed for medication administration, resulting in a medications administration error rate of 16.7%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain and effective pest control program control pests for one unit (secured) of two units where vulnerable residents resided.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews, review of facility policies and procedures, and review of Resident Council Meeting minutes the facility failed to act on grievances related to outside activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews with staff, and record review the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 2 residential floors was maintained in a safe and clean manner for residents related to soiled dining room vents, a patio doorway in ill repair, loose molding/baseboards, exposed strand board, sharp jagged edges on dining tables, rusted dining table with uncapped legs, miscellaneous items stored in the dining room, cable hanging from the ceiling and hole in the baseboard in room [ROOM NUMBER], and pillows with no coverings on top of a wardrobe closet in room [ROOM NUMBER].
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observation, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the effectiveness of the medication as well as behavior and side effects monitoring which are all essential for evaluating the use of psychotropic medications, was accurately recorded for four (# 10, # 14, # 52, and # 84,) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and review of maintenance records, the facility did not ensure that a preventative maintenance schedule was in place to maintain the call light system for 1 of 2 floors in the building. Seven resident rooms and/or bathrooms (105, 107, 111, 113, 115, 124 and 125) out of 31 total resident rooms on the first floor of the building had call lights that were not functional and needed repair. Findings Included: Direct observation of call light function on 11/12/19 at 11 a.m. and 11/13/19 at 1 p.m. confirmed that the call lights for room [ROOM NUMBER] were not functioning. An observation was conducted on 11/12/19 at 1:30 p.m. The resident was observed sitting in her wheelchair in the hall, and she was observed going into room [ROOM NUMBER]. She pressed the call bell laying on the bed near the door. The call light did not light up (activate). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of policy and procedures the facility failed to investigate the grievance for one (#94) of one resident reviewed for personal property in regards to a set of missing dental implants.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment was coded accurately for one resident (#296) of two residents reviewed for Communication-Sensory Deficits. Resident #296's MDS did not accurately reflect his vision status. Findings Included: Review of Resident #296's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the section for vision: ability to see in adequate light was marked 0 as adequate. Review of Resident #296's admission Record revealed diagnoses that included: Open angle Glaucoma. His physician orders included Latanoprost eye drops; 1 drop each eye in the evening. Azopt eye drops: 1 drop twice a day in both eyes. Initiate fall prevention program (started 11/4/19). Review of Resident #296's Care plan, dated 10/14/19, revealed: Falls: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a care plan for impaired vision was developed and implemented for one resident (#296) of two residents reviewed for care plan interventions applicable for Communication-Sensory Deficits. Findings Included: Review of Resident #296's admission Record revealed that he was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Open angle Glaucoma, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. His physician orders included Latanoprost eye drops; 1 drop each eye in the evening. Azopt eye drops: 1 drop twice a day in both eyes. Initiate fall prevention program (started 11/4/19). Review of Resident #296's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed: Brief Interview for Mental Status: Score 99 unable to complete. Hearing/Speech/Vision: vision: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pharmacy recommendations were reviewed and acted upon in a timely manner for 2 (#10, and #14) of 4 residents reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. Findings Included: 1. Review of Resident #10's admission Record revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: psychotic disorder with delusions, dementia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Her physician's orders included: Do Not Resuscitate, Buspirone tablet 7.5 milligrams (mg); oral; one tab twice a day for anxiety. Celexa tablet 10 mg; oral, give 10 mg tab every day for depression. Review of Resident #10's care plan revealed: 5/4/2019: Psychotropic Drug Use: anti-anxiety medication related to anxiety. Approach: monitor for drug use and effectiveness and adverse consequences. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards in 1 of 2 medication storage rooms.
Inspectors wrote2. An observation was made on 11/12/19 at 11:58 a.m., of one of two metal tray carts on the secured unit of the facility. The tray cart contained meal trays for the residents eating in their rooms. The meal trays contained a covered plate and an uncovered tart-sized cheesecake. Photographic evidence obtained. At 12:07 p.m. on 11/12/19, Staff Member J, CNA, confirmed the cheesecakes were not covered and stated the kitchen sent them to the unit uncovered. On 11/14/19 at 12:44 p.m., the Dietary Manager stated dessert on the meal trays are to be covered. He stated even though the carts are covered, the food should also be covered and felt the kitchen staff was trying to preserve the presentation. [...]
18 fire safety citations on file: 15 on January 25, 2024, 3 on November 15, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 17, 2024 | Fine | $12,529 |
| January 25, 2024 | Fine | $12,542 |
| January 25, 2024 | Fine | $296,449 |
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) | 4.18 | 3.82 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.39 | 0.73 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.69 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.71 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.08 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.7% | 41.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 58.8% | 46.0% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.18 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 4.37 on weekdays and 3.69 on weekends, 16% 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 5.04 in April to June 2025 to 4.18 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 | 4.18 | 0.39 | 4.37 | 3.69 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 100 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.38 | 0.46 | 4.54 | 3.97 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 100 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.60 | 0.55 | 4.78 | 4.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 93 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 5.04 | 0.62 | 5.23 | 4.56 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 90 |
| 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.
| 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 | 5.2 | 8.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.0 | 9.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.4 | 8.6 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Lake Mariam Health and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (39.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
39.4% this home
No different from 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. 25 eligible stays.
9.7% 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. 53 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. 24 eligible stays.
66.7% 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. 21 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. 29 residents counted.
2.5% 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. 29 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 3 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: LAKE MARIAM FL OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Robert Schoenfeld, a group of 8 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lake Mariam Fl Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/11/2023 |
| Schoenfeld, Robert | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/11/2023 | |
| Fl Hc Opco LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Schoenfeld, Robert | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Fl Hc Opco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Dean, Byron | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Schoenfeld, Robert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Taplin, Cynthia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/08/2024 |
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.