2170 West Navajo Drive, Freeport, IL 61032 · Stephenson County · (815) 233-2400
117 certified beds, about 107 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2006
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 146102 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 25, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Illinois average is 12.6, the national average 9.2).
Of 52 health citations since September 2023, 10 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 6 fines totaling $107,314 in the last three years; the largest was $31,603, and the latest is dated March 19, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.87 hours per resident per day, against 3.45 across Illinois and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.76 of those hours.
33.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Illinois average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Residential Alternatives of Illinois, an affiliated group of 7 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 52 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide incontinent care to a resident dependent on staff for 1 of 5 residents (R1) reviewed for Improper Nursing in the sample 5.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of medical records for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for medical records in the sample of 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure there were staff available to administer resident medications according to schedule administration times for 5 of 5 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) reviewed for staffing in the sample of 5.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer resident medications according to Physician Orders for 4 of 5 residents (R1, R2, R3, R5) reviewed for medications in the sample of 5.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant errors for 4 of 5 residents (R1, R2, R3, R5) reviewed for medications in the sample of 5.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident from abuse. This applies to one of three residents (R2) reviewed for abuse in the sample of three.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of physical abuse of a resident in a timely manner. This applies to one of three residents (R2) reviewed for abuse in the sample of three.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to perform weekly skin assessments, failed to identity a pressure ulcer prior to late stages for 1 resident, failed to obtain physician's orders for treatment of a pressure ulcer for 1 resident. This failure resulted in R3 obtaining a Stage 3 pressure ulcer that required surgical debridement and advanced to a Stage 4 pressure ulcer. These failures apply to 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers in the sample of 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor a residents (R1) Advanced Directive, resulting in (R1) being resuscitated against her wishes. This failure applies to 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Advanced Directives in the sample of 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident (R2) was free from significant medication errors. This applies to 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medications in the sample of 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper cooling techniques were utilized, failed to maintain cleanliness of unit food storage areas, and failed to maintain facility freezer in proper working condition. These failures have the potential to affect all residents in the building. The facility roster, dated 11/23/25, showed 110 residents residing in the facility. On 11/23/25 at 11:00AM, the initial tour of the kitchen was conducted. The thermometer reading on the facility's walk-in cooler registered at 0 degrees Fahrenheit. V25 (Cook) stated the temperature should be higher than that. A container of Salisbury steak inside the cooler appeared frozen. A previously cooked pork roast was loosely covered in a pan with aluminum foil and showed a use by date of 11/27/25. V25 stated the roast was cooked on Thursday (11/20/25). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with dysphagia received thickened liquids and was supervised when eating to prevent her from eating another resident's food and large amount of food at once for 1 of 1 resident (R33), and the facility failed to ensure the hot water and coffee in 3 of 4 dining rooms were at safe temperatures, for residents reviewed for safety and supervision in the sample of 50. This failure has the potential to affect residents in 3 of 4 dining areas.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide privacy to a resident during a blood sugar check and insulin administration. This applies to three of three residents (R28, R42, R90) reviewed for privacy in the sample of 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received assistance to eat (R79) and failed to ensure showers were provided (R22) for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living in the sample of 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure pressure relieving interventions were in place for 1 of 3 residents (R47) reviewed for non-pressure wounds in the sample of 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify pressure ulcers prior to becoming advanced stages for 2 of 3 residents (R83, R6) reviewed for pressure ulcers in the sample of 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to keep the catheter drainage bag of the bed and below the level of the bladder for 1 of 3 residents (R13) reviewed for catheters in the sample of 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the physician with the dietician recommendations for a resident with a significant weight loss, and the facility failed to ensure a resident received fluids with her meal and ordered supplements. This applies to 2 of 5 residents (R33 & R8) reviewed for nutrition in the sample of 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to sanitize the blood glucose testing monitor between residents. This applies to three of eight residents (R28, R42, R90) reviewed for infection control in the sample of 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a resident's Power of Attorney after the resident fell from her bed. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for notification in the sample of 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to safely transfer a resident with a mechanical lift following the resident's fall. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for falls in the sample of 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe mobility for residents by not ensuring footrests were on wheelchairs when pushing residents for 4 of 6 residents (R1, R4, R5, & R6) reviewed for safety in the sample of 6. This failure resulted in R1 falling out of the wheelchair and sustaining a laceration that required 3 sutures to close.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician was notified of a medication error for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for notifications in the sample of 8.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered when prepared for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for medication administration in the sample of 8.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer a resident's (R1) sodium tablets for 12 days following his admission to the facility. This failure resulted in R1 experiencing a critically low sodium level, confusion, hallucinations, and a 15 day hospital stay to correct his sodium levels. This applies to 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medications in the sample of 5.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a call light to a resident, and failed to provide supervision to a resident while up in her wheelchair. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for safety and supervision in the sample of 6.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe transfer by not using a gait belt for one resident, (R3), and failed to ensure one resident (R1) was safely transferred. This failure resulted in R1 falling during a staff assisted transfer and sustaining multiple lacerations to her head requiring sutures. This applies to 2 of 3 residents (R1 and R3) reviewed for safety in the sample of 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was wearing non-skid footwear and was being held by the gait belt when being transferred/ambulated for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for safety and supervision in the sample of 3 residents. This failure resulted in R1 falling and sustaining a rib fracture, two transverse process fractures of the lumbar vertebrae, and a skin tear.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to immediately notify a physician of a fall with new onset of pain, failed to monitor and assess a resident post fall for pain and change of condition, and failed to provide pain medication for a resident experiencing pain after a fall for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for quality of care. This failure resulted in R1 not being transferred to the acute care hospital for evaluation for 19 hours after a fall with a fractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to perform a safe transfer for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for safety in the sample of 5. This failure resulted in R1 experiencing a fall and fracturing his left arm and shoulder.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify a pressure wound prior to becoming advanced stages, failed to identify deterioration of an existing pressure ulcer, failed to perform weekly wound assessments, failed to perform accurate wound assessments for 2 residents (R75, R63), failed to provide wound treatments, failed to maintain documentation of wound assessments for 1 resident (R16), and failed to ensure pressure ulcer prevention measures were in place for 1 resident (R63). These failures resulted in R75 experiencing sepsis requiring hospitalization, surgical debridement of his necrotic wound, and placement of a colostomy due to an infected wound. These failures also resulted in R63's bilateral heel wounds not being identified until they were unstageable wounds and becoming necrotic. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions for residents with significant weight loss for 3 of 4 residents (R82, R70, R83) reviewed for weight loss in the sample of 24. These failures caused R82 to experience a 9.91% weight loss in 1 month, R70 to experience a 10.40% weight loss in 1 month, and R83 to experience a 12.18% weight loss in 1 month and a 18.55% weight loss in 3 months.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement COVID-19 outbreak interventions, failed to implement contact isolation precautions, and failed to implement enhanced barrier precaution interventions. This failure has the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity for 3 of 3 residents (R57, R255, R51) reviewed for dignity in the sample of 24 and 3 residents (R101, R256, R105) outside of the sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident medications were clearly labeled and stored in a manner to prevent impairment of the integrity of the medicines for two of three medication carts reviewed for medication storage. This has a potential to affect all of the residents with medication stored in the two medication carts.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide hand hygiene for 1 of 1 resident (R64) in the sample of 24.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a dressing change in a manner to prevent cross contamination for 1 of 2 residents (R51) reviewed for quality of care in the sample of 24.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide restorative exercises to 1 of 2 residents (R63) reviewed for range of motion in the sample of 23.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident preferences were considered for 1 of 1 resident (R9) reviewed for food preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment per physician's orders for 1 resident (R1) following a fall with injury. This applies to 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls in the sample of 7.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident (R1) who is a high risk for falls was provided with the appropriate shower device during a shower. The failure resulted in R1 sustaining a fracture to his right hip. This applies to one of three residents, (R1) reviewed for showers in a sample of three.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore masks during a COVID-19 outbreak, and failed to ensure staff wore gloves and performed hand hygiene to prevent cross contamination during wound care. These failures have the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the recipe for the noon pureed meal for four of four residents (R26, R30, R35, R250) reviewed for food in the sample of 21.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat residents in a dignified manner by staff eating personal food during the residents' lunch meal for two of 21 residents (R26, R30) reviewed for dignity in the sample of 21.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure pressure wound treatments were in place, and failed to ensure pressure relieving interventions were in place for 2 of 7 residents (R76, R32) reviewed for pressure injuries in a sample of 21.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were in place, and failed to update fall prevention interventions after a resident's fall, for one of six residents (R31) reviewed for safety supervision in the sample of 21.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a diabetic medication was available for 1 of 21 residents (R52) reviewed for pharmacy services in the sample of 21.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensue a resident received ordered medication for an enlarged prostate over a 10 month period, causing a significant medication error for 1 of 21 residents (R45) reviewed for pharmacy services in the sample of 21.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to serve thickened liquids as ordered for a resident with dysphagia for one of three residents (R30) reviewed for altered diets in the sample of 21.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dressing changes were being completed as ordered for residents (R1 & R12) with non-pressure wounds in the sample of 12.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dressing changes were being completed as ordered for residents (R2 & R3) with pressure ulcers in the sample of 12.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safety and supervision were provided for a resident at risk for falling for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for falls in the sample of 12.
20 fire safety citations on file: 11 on November 25, 2025, 7 on August 29, 2024, 2 on October 4, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 19, 2026 | Fine | $31,603 |
| August 19, 2025 | Fine | $11,196 |
| July 8, 2025 | Fine | $13,161 |
| January 9, 2025 | Fine | $14,505 |
| November 25, 2024 | Fine | $14,050 |
| August 29, 2024 | Fine | $22,799 |
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) | 3.87 | 3.45 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.41 | 3.07 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.76 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.36 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 33.9% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 29.2% | 41.8% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.34 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 4.06 on weekdays and 3.41 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 4.00 in April to June 2025 to 3.87 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 | 3.87 | 0.76 | 4.06 | 3.41 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 107 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.98 | 0.74 | 4.15 | 3.56 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 112 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.12 | 0.82 | 4.29 | 3.71 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 107 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.00 | 0.74 | 4.14 | 3.67 | 0.3% | 0 of 91 | 109 |
| 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.
| 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 | 17.7 | 13.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.9 | 14.3 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.8 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.5 | 21.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.2 | 26.1 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.0 | 13.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Manor Court of Freeport's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (61.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
61.7% 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. 191 eligible stays.
10.3% this home
No different from 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. 198 eligible stays.
7.8% 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. 125 eligible stays.
46.5% 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. 58 residents counted.
1.7% 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. 118 residents counted.
6.9% 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. 118 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 75 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: RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVES OF ILLINOIS INC. CMS links this home to Residential Alternatives of Illinois, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residential Alternatives of Illinois Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/09/2006 |
| Bardelas, Andres | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/14/2005 | |
| Kempiners, William | Corporate director | Individual | 08/01/2013 | |
| Kniery, John | Corporate director | Individual | 08/01/2013 | |
| Shaw, Jeffrey | Corporate director | Individual | 02/13/2006 | |
| Kniery, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/25/2018 | |
| Shaw, Jeffrey | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2013 | |
| Wilson, Ronald | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/28/2018 |
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.