1255 Ne 135th Street, North Miami, FL 33161 · Miami-Dade County · (305) 891-6850
245 certified beds, about 215 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 2020
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 106133 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 28, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Florida average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 50 health citations since March 2023, 7 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (5 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $128,281 in the last three years; the largest was $119,633, and the latest is dated August 1, 2024.
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 0.73 of those hours.
24.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Florida average 41.4%).
CMS links it to Ventura Services, an affiliated group of 14 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 50 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, sanitary, homelike environment in one (J hallway) out of three nursing stations with trash bins left open and unattended, residents' rooms and floor surfaces were soiled and had foul odors, overflowing trash, visible debris, unflushed toilets, dirty furnishings, soiled torn linen and unrepaired structural damage in multiple resident rooms. There were 210 residents in the facility at the time of the survey
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA)/QAPI) committee demonstrate effective plan of action were implemented to correct identified quality deficiency in problem areas related to repeated deficient practice for F761-Lable/Store Drugs and Biologicals, F684-Quality of Care, F689-Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices and F867-QAPI/QAA Improvement Activities. As evidenced by: F761, F684, F689 and F867 were cited during a recertification survey ending 09/04/2024. There were 210 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to secure confidential information for residents on two (East and J) out of three nursing stations as evidenced by: 1) Paperwork with residents/ medical information left visible and unattended at the J nursing station. 2) An unattended computer screen with resident information visible on the East nursing station. There were 210 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review facility created an unsafe environment with potential accidents and hazards for one (Resident#94) out of two sampled smoking residents and all residents as evidenced by: 1) The facility's staff failed to provide an apron for Resident#94 while smoking. 2) Facility staff failed to remain vigilant while assigned to monitor to prevent elopement. 3) Facility staff failed to keep one out of six housekeeping carts locked while unattended. This deficient practice increased the risk of accidents and hazards that could have caused serious harm or injuries. There were seven residents listed as smokers on the J Unit and six housekeeping carts.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records reviewed, and interviews, the facility failed to properly position an indwelling urinary catheter tubing and drainage bags for two (Resident # 7 and Resident # 93) out of three sampled residents with an indwelling urinary catheter. Resident # 7's urinary catheter drainage bag was observed on the floor uncovered and drainage bag was on the floor, Resident #93's indwelling catheter tubing lay over the right-side bedside rail padding above the bladder, which prevented the flow of urine from the bladder and the drainage bag was in a privacy bag that touched the floor. These deficient practices increased the residents' risk for catheter-associated urinary tract infections and other serious medical issues. At the time of this survey, thirteen residents with indwelling urinary catheters resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations records reviewed and interviews, the facility's staff failed to follow medication administration procedure via Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy tube (PEG) in accordance with professional standards for one of one resident ( Resident # 93) observed for medication administration via PEG tube; as evidenced by staff did not clean the tip (port) and did not check the PEG tube for placement and patency before medication administration. This deficient practice can lead to severe, life-threatening complications for Resident #93. There were 19 residents with PEG tubes residing in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records review and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate respiratory care and services for one (Resident #1) out of two sampled tracheostomy residents as evidenced by an observation of oxygen being delivered at a rate below the prescribed level for Resident #1. There were seven residents with a tracheostomy residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations records reviewed and interviews the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals are securely stored in accordance with professional standards for one (J Wing Cart 2) out of four medication carts reviewed as evidenced by medication cart two on the J wing was noted unlocked and unattended 2) Facility staff left medications unattended at bedside for Resident #50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe environment for one (Resident #2) out of three residents sampled as evidenced by observations of an electric water kettle sitting on the bedside table and plugged in the electrical receptacle next to the bed. There were 211 residents present in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a well-balanced diet to meet special dietary needs for one diabetic (Resident #1) out of three residents sampled. There were 40 diabetic residents out of the 211 residents present in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that menus were followed for nutritional adequacy to meet special dietary needs for one diabetic (Resident #1) out of three residents sampled. There were 40 diabetic residents out of the 211 residents present in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, 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 F689 Accidents Hazards and F803 Menus Meet Resident Needs and Followed. These deficient practices have the potential to affect 211 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect as evidence by; Resident #1 a vulnerable resident with exit seeking behaviors who voiced intent to leave the facility and refused to sign an Against Medical Advice (AMA) was not adequately supervised and monitored by the facility's staff who did not see the resident exit the facility. Resident #1 was found decomposed in a locked closet 12 days after the facility documented he left the facility AMA.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to implement their abuse and neglect policy as evidenced by staff failure to provide care and services including adequate supervision for one (Resident number 1) out of three residents sampled during the time of this survey. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. This enabled resident number 1 to go missing from the facility undetected on 8/22/24. The resident was not located until 8:30 AM on 9/02/24 deceased in a locked closet and his body was decomposed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's environment was safe and residents were adequately supervised, as evidenced by one (Resident #1) out of three vulnerable resident sampled with exit seeking behaviors voice his intent to leave the facility refused to sign an Against Medical Advice (AMA). was not adequately supervised and monitored by the facility's staff who did not see the resident exit the facility The facility had an unsecured closet that was being used for storage that Resident #1 entered undetected. Resident #1 decomposed body was found for 12 days after staff reported the resident left the facility AMA.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews the facility's administrative staff failed to ensure staff implemented a safe AMA discharge process by failing to monitor/escort a resident leaving the facility; failed to communicate and ensure efficient preventative measures to prevent the neglect of one resident (Resident number 1) out of three sampled residents who displayed exit seeking behaviors. As evidenced by failure by staff to implement assigned level of supervision for resident number 1 who was at risk for elopement, had exit seeking behaviors, wandered the unit and near exit doors and voiced his intent to leave the facility. These deficient practices enabled Resident number 1 to go missing from the facility undetected on [DATE]. The resident was not located until 8:30 AM on [DATE] deceased and decomposing in a locked closet.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents' medical records are accurate in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for two (Resident #1 and Resident #3) out of three residents sampled, as evidenced by an Elopement Risk Assessment information for Resident#1 was struck out by the Director of Nursing (DON) when written by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON); [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility's quality assurance and assessment committee failed to identify quality concerns to implement effective plans of action related to adequate supervision resulting in repeated deficient practice. The facility's history includes deficient practice for failing to supervise residents and was cited for Free of Accident Hazards, Supervision, Devices and Quality Assurance and Assessment (QA&A).during survey with Event ID # 4HN11, exit date 08/02/2024 with noncompliance cited at a scope and severity (S/S) of No actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy (D). Additional during survey Event ID # 8CDC11, exit date 06/04/2024 QA&A with noncompliance cited at a S/S of D. During survey Event ID # 4E6811, exit date 09/20/2023 Administration was cited at S/S of Actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy (G). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility's quality assurance and assessment committee (QAA) failed to demonstrate effective plan of actions were implemented to correct identified quality deficiencies in the problem areas related to repeated deficient practices; as evidenced by, review of the facility's history revealed during the survey with exit dated 03/24/2023 the facility was cited for these repeated deficiencies identified during this survey with exit dated 08/01/24 related to: F584 Safe/ Clean/ Comfortable/ Homelike Environment, F641 Accuracy of Assessments, F645 PASRR Screening for Mental Disorder/ Intellectual Disability, F656 Develop/implement comprehensive care plan, F684 Quality of Care, F791 Routine/Emergency Dental Services, F761 Label/Store Drugs & Biologicals and F867 QAPI/QAA Improvement Activities. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to promote and ensure residents are treated in a dignified manner and treated with respect; for four out of the 36 residents sampled. (Resident #201, Resident #159, Resident #48 and Resident #76). As evidenced by 1) staff observed standing while feeding Resident #201 with breakfast. 2)Resident #201 and 159 did not receive their food tray until half an hour after the other two roommates. 3) Staff referred to the residents that need assistance with eating as feeders and 4) Resident #48 in view of staff and other residents was wearing no pants with genitals exposed and Resident # 76 was wearing no socks or shoes propelling in wheelchair around the facility. There were 208 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one resident (Resident #145) out of the 36 sampled residents. There were 56 residents residing in the facility that are smokers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was completed accurately prior to readmission and failed to revise the screening following admission for one (1) Resident (#107). There were 208 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The findings Included: During observations on 07/29/24 at 08:10 AM Resident #107 was in bed asleep. On 07/30/24 at 08:58 AM Resident # 107 was in bed awake. On 07/31/24 at 09:31 AM resident in bed asleep. Review of the medical records for Resident #107 revealed, the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Clinical diagnoses included but were not limited to: Major depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorder and Unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, facility failed to develop a Smoking care plan for Resident # 145 out of one resident reviewed for discharge care plan at the time of the survey. there were 208 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews facility failed to provide treatment and care for a skin condition for one resident (Resident #8) out of eleven residents sampled as evidenced by Resident # 8's right foot was noted to be dry and scaly while in bed. There were 208 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the safety of two vulnerable residents (Resident #12 and Resident # 84) out of 40 residents sampled. As evidenced by an open toiletry bag full of shaving razors was observed on Resident #12's overbed table and a shaving razor was observed on Resident # 84's bedside table. Failed to ensure two Soiled Utility/Biohazard rooms, were locked. There were 208 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. The findings Included: During observation 7/29/24 at 08:15 AM Resident #12 was in bed watching television, an open toiletry bag full of razors was on the overbed table, (Photo available). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review the facility the failed to ensure medications are secured and properly stored on the facility's E wing and medication at bedside for two (Resident #96 and Resident #98) out of eleven sampled residents as evidenced by the E Nursing unit medication cart was observed unlocked and unattended. Observation of a bottle of nasal spray, eye drops, and Ammonium Lactate Lotion at Resident #96's bedside, a bottle of Ammonium Lactate lotion observed on the side table in front of Resident #98. There were 208 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. On 07/29/24 at 8:57 AM an observation was made of an unlocked medication cart unattended in The E Nursing unit. (photo evidence) On 07/29/24 at 9:02 AM Staff R, Registered Nurse (RN) exited a resident's room and returned to cart. Approached by surveyor. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assure that emergency dental services were provided for one (Resident number186) out of one resident who triggered for dental. This practice has the potential to decrease resident's ability to reach their highest potential.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assure that menus are developed and prepared to meet resident choices including their cultural and ethnic needs for one (Resident number 186) out of one resident who triggered for food.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure food was prepared under sanitary conditions as evidenced by failure to maintain equipment in the nourishment pantry in a clean sanitary manner. This was observed in one of three nourishment pantries and has the potential to affect thirty-five out of forty residents who eat orally residing on the J unit in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a microwave used for residents was in good repair. The microwave in the Nourishment Pantry Room contained brown-like rust stains. This has the potential to affect thirty-five out of forty residents who eat orally residing on the J unit in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure adequate information was documented in the medical records for one (Resident #2) out of three residents reviewed for admission, transfer and discharge rights. As evidenced by the medical records for Resident #2 was not documented in accordance with accepted professional standards/practices, that require residents' records to be complete, accurate, organized and contain sufficient information. The facility's staff were unable to provide factual information related to Resident # 2's status after leaving the facility to the hospital via emergency services.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility's quality assurance and assessment committee failed to identify quality concerns in order to implement effective plans of action related to maintaining accurate medical records resulting in repeated deficient practice. The facility was cited F842- Resident Records ? Identifiable Information in March 2023; again during this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to permit a resident to return to the facility for one (Resident #2) out of three residents reviewed for admission, transfer and discharge rights. Resident #2 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE], and was not permitted to return to the facility he had lived in since [DATE]. Resident #2 was in the hospital from [DATE] to [DATE]. The resident was ready for discharge from the hospital on [DATE] and was not allowed to return to the facility due to not having a payor source. The deficient practice enabled the facility to initiate a discharge while resident #2 was in the hospital and did not permit the resident to return to his home which created psychosocial harm to resident #2.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility's administration failed to implement, provide and ensure an effective and efficient discharge process was in place for one resident (Resident #2) out of three sampled residents who were discharged . Resident #2 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE], and was not permitted to return to the facility he had lived in since [DATE]. Resident #2 was in the hospital from [DATE] to [DATE]. The resident was ready for discharge from the hospital on [DATE] and was not allowed to return to the facility due to not having a payor source. The deficient practice enabled the facility to initiate a discharge while resident #2 was in the hospital and did not permit the resident to return to his home which created psychosocial harm to resident #2.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow Infection Prevention and Control Policies and Procedure. This affected 1) One (1) out of 41 residents receiving Accuchecks/blood glucose monitoring (Resident #136). The facility failed to appropriately clean and disinfect a blood glucose monitoring device that was being used for multiple residents. The likelihood existed for cross contamination, increased risk for exposure and being infected with a blood borne pathogen through the use of the contaminated blood glucose monitoring device. 2) Three (3) out of 7 residents on Isolation Precautions (Resident #119, Resident#195, Resident #265). Staff were observed entering resident rooms without putting on proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews and records reviewed the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, as evidenced by strong urine odor noted throughout the facility. 2) unclean, disrepair unkempt environment to include disrepair toilet in Resident # 51) unclean ceiling in resident room (Resident # 91). This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility at the time of this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I for serious mental illness (SMI) or intellectual disability (ID) was completed at the time of admission for one resident (Resident #40) and failed to request Level II PASRR for eight residents (Resident # 40, Resident #63, Resident # 28, Resident # 34, Resident #146, Resident #118 and Resident #120 and Resident #53) out of twelve residents whose PASRR were reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 207 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to demonstrate effective plan of actions were implemented to correct identified quality deficiencies in the problem area related to repeated deficient practices cited during this survey for: F585-Grievances F623- Notice Requirements Before Transfer/Discharge; F641 Accuracy of Assessments; F645 PASARR Screening; F695 Respiratory/Tracheostomy Care and Suctioning; F761 Label/Store Drugs and Biologicals; F849 Hospice Services. These repeat deficient practices has the potential to affect 207 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide documentation of informing two (2) out of 38 sampled residents about advance directives for Resident #9 and Resident #146.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to respond to grievances for one (Resident #120) out of one resident reviewed for grievances. The resident's brother established communication with the facility concerning complaints about the brother's care with rehabilitation and was not informed of the results of the grievance. There were 207 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a notice to the Ombudsman concerning a discharge to the hospital for one (Residet #211) out of three residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold policy to the resident concerning a discharge to the hospital for three (Resident # 211, Resident #175 and Resident # 62) out of three residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to document an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) related to oxygen use for one (1) out of 61 residents receiving respiratory treatment (Resident #134).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a written care plan related to skin integrity and dental for one resident (Resident # 91) out of 38 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide treatment and care related to skin integrity for one resident (Resident # 91) out of one resident reviewed for skin conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed provide respiratory services to meet professional standards for two residents (Resident #118 and Resident #134) out of the 38 sampled residents. Resident # 118 was receiving oxygen without a physician's order and Resident # 134 oxygen was not being administered at the rate ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure dental service was provided for one resident (Resident # 91) out of one resident reviewed. This practice has the potential to affect all 207 residents present in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and policy review the facility failed to assure the garbage and refuse area was clean and flattened cardboard boxes were properly disposed and contained on the facility grounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate documentation of resident's Advanced Directives for 1 (Resident #175) out of 38 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain communication with hospice to ensure continuation of care for 1 (Resident #153) out of 6 residents on hospice care, as evidenced by no updated hospice communication notes available in Resident #153's medical records. This had the potential to affect the 207 residents residing in the facility at the time of this survey. The Findings Included: During observation on 03/20/2023 at 06:47 AM resident in bed asleep, call light on bed, no distress noted. On 03/21/2023 at 08:25 AM Resident #153 was observed in bed asleep, no distress noted. On 03/22/2023 at 07:30 AM Resident #153 was observed in bed asleep, no distress noted. On 03/22/2023 10:42 AM Resident #153 observed in wheelchair in room, rolling around, no distress noted. On 01/18/2023 at 08:36 AM Resident #153 was observed in bed asleep. [...]
12 fire safety citations on file: 1 on January 28, 2026, 2 on August 1, 2024, 9 on March 24, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 1, 2024 | Fine | $119,633 |
| September 20, 2023 | Fine | $4,324 |
| September 20, 2023 | Fine | $4,324 |
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) | 3.51 | 3.82 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.17 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.20 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.58 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 24.7% | 41.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 48.9% | 46.0% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.86 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 3.65 on weekdays and 3.17 on weekends, 13% 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 3.66 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 | 0.73 | 3.65 | 3.17 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 215 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.57 | 0.71 | 3.70 | 3.24 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 206 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.58 | 0.73 | 3.71 | 3.23 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 211 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.66 | 0.68 | 3.83 | 3.22 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 213 |
| 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 | 2.2 | 8.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 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 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 9.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.4 | 8.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 35.7 | 26.1 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.3 | 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 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for North Dade Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
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 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. 22 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. 48 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.
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: 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. 13 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. 25 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 25 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. 1 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: NORTH DADE SNF OPERATING COMPANY, LLC. CMS links this home to Ventura Services, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ventura Opco Holdco, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 10/14/2019 |
| Agrp 2011 Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Deborah Philipson 2011 Family Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Philipson Family Limited Liability Company, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Schaffer, Daniel | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 10/14/2019 | |
| Bengio, Jacob | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/14/2019 | |
| Paritzky, Jeremie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/14/2019 | |
| Schaffer, Daniel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/14/2019 | |
| Weekes, Alesia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/02/2025 | |
| Philipson, Bent | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/10/2025 | |
| Philipson, Gabrielle | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/10/2025 | |
| Philipson, Raquel | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/10/2025 | |
| Agrp 2011 Trust | Trustee of the SNF | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Deborah Philipson 2011 Family Trust | Trustee of the SNF | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Agrp 2011 Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Deborah Philipson 2011 Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Philipson Family Limited Liability Company, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Richards Mitchell & Cross Pa | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Ventura Services - Florida, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/14/2019 | |
| Eliacin, Ludger | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Weekes, Alesia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/02/2025 |
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.
Licensed assisted living homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its Florida inspection record.
These are the official offices in Florida. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.