3401 Hennepin Drive, Joliet, IL 60435 · Will County · (815) 436-5900
120 certified beds, about 101 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 145694 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 12, 2025, inspectors cited 19 health deficiencies (the Illinois average is 12.6, the national average 9.2).
Of 65 health citations since October 2023, 8 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 7 fines totaling $190,155 in the last three years; the largest was $67,977, and the latest is dated October 28, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.22 hours per resident per day, against 3.45 across Illinois and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.46 of those hours.
67.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Illinois average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Extended Care Clinical, an affiliated group of 9 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 65 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain safe and comfortable temperatures for residents. This applies to all 102 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain essential heating equipment to maintain safe and comfortable temperatures in the facility. This applies to all 102 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure food was prepared and served under sanitary conditions by not ensuring kitchen areas and equipment were maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, not performing hand hygiene when necessary, not wearing hair coverings appropriately, and not discarding spoiled food. This failure applies to all 100 residents eating food from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to implement safety and fall prevention interventions when transferring a resident during personal care. This applies to 1 of 8 residents (R7) reviewed for falls in a sample of 10 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor and assist a resident with a known risk for malnutrition with restoring her oral eating skills, and failed to provide gastrostomy tube management and care as ordered for a resident who was dependent on enteral nutrition. This failure resulted in R6 experiencing a significant weight loss of 5.8% in one month. This applies to 1 of 1 resident (R6) reviewed for gastrostomy-tubes in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dish machine temperatures were monitored and failed to label/date/seal food items in the kitchen. This applies to all residents that receive oral nutrition and foods prepared in the facility kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide ADL (Activities of Daily Living) to residents who need assistance. This applies to 4 of 4 residents (R13, R53, R60, R111) in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to wear PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) for residents on EBP (Enhanced Barrier Precautions) and perform hand hygiene during care. This applies to 5 of 5 residents (R6, R46, R87, R97 and R112) reviewed for infection control in the sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain their 2 person assist mechanical lifts in operating condition. This applies to all 31 residents (R23, R48, R55, R57, R62, R71, R72, R73, R78, R82, R85, R100, R102, R104, R105, R2, R8, R12, R14, R29, R31, R35, R40, R46, R50, R69, R79, R93, R96, R97, R111) that use the 2 person mechanical lift.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a resident with a bed that was long enough for his height. This applies to 1 of 1 resident (R111) reviewed for accommodation of needs in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to check a diabetic resident's glucose prior to eating and failed to prime an insulin pen. This applies to 1 of 1 residents (R111) reviewed for diabetic management in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to report, assess, and treat residents with wounds. This applies to 2 of 3 residents (R46 and R2) reviewed for skin alterations in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers had pressure ulcer treatments in place. This applies to 2 of 4 residents (R46, R111) reviewed for pressure sores in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain podiatry care for a dependent resident. This applies to 1 of 1 resident (R53) reviewed for podiatry services in the sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were positioned safely in their wheelchairs to mitigate accident risk. This applies to 3 of 3 residents (R96, R31, and R14) reviewed for accidents/supervision in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement nutritional interventions for a resident with known weight loss. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R61) reviewed for nutrition in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide IV (intravenous) care and services. This applies to 1 of 2 residents (R111) reviewed for IV maintenance in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to perform tracheostomy care in a sterile manner and failed to ensure emergency tracheostomy equipment was at the bedside for a resident with a tracheostomy. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R6) reviewed for respiratory care in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain documentation of pharmacist monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) and prescribing practitioners' response to pharmacy recommendations. This applies to 2 of 5 residents (R11, R66) reviewed for unnecessary medications in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer a resident's anemia treatment injections as ordered. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R31) reviewed for medications in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation the facility failed to securely store medications and monitor the medication refrigerator temperatures. This applies 2 of 2 residents (R11, R27) reviewed for medication storage in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to serve diets to meet resident's needs. This applies to 2 of 2 residents (R34 and R61) reviewed for dietary services in the sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to remove expired foods from and have thermometers in residents' personal refrigerators. This applies to 2 of 2 residents (R52, R60) reviewed for refrigerators in a sample of 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident at high risk for falls received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents. This applies to 1 resident (R2) reviewed for accident hazards in a sample of 3. This failure resulted in R2 who was transferred via the sit to stand with the assist of one sustaining an injury to her left eyebrow from falling forward and hitting her head on the machine
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from mental abuse. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for abuse in the sample of 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the required physician documentation was included in the medical record to support a resident's transfer and discharge rights. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for transfer and discharge rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was positioned safely in bed for cares. This failure resulted in R1 falling and sustaining fractures of her right femur and right tibia, and a right knee dislocation. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for safety/falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow therapy's recommendations for safe transfer of a resident. This failure resulted in R345 sustaining a laceration on R345's left leg requiring six sutures due to an improper transfer. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R345) reviewed for resident injury in the sample of 19.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow sanitary practices during food preparation and service. This applies to 92 residents that receive foods prepared and served from the facility kitchen.
Inspectors wrote7. R63's Electronic Medical Record showed her to be an [AGE] year-old admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include Dementia, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, adult failure to thrive, gastrostomy status, and anorexia. R63's physician's order dated August 5, 2024, showed Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) due to being positive for Candida Auris every shift. R63's care plan dated May 3, 2024, showed requires EBP due to Candida Auris. The interventions include gown and glove use when performing high-contact resident activity, and following facility's infection control and enhanced barrier precautions policies and procedures. On October 22, 2024, at 12:56 AM, R63's door had a EBP sign showing that gown and gloves need to be worn during care. There also was a storage bin near the entrance that contained gowns and other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview the facility failed to maintain resident room temperature at a comfortable setting to provide homelike environment. This applies to 6 of 6 residents (R17, R30, R43, R86, R245, R346) reviewed for environment in the sample of 19.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assist residents identified as needing assistance with personal hygiene, grooming and incontinence care. This applies to 6 of 6 residents (R13, R23, R25, R56, R71 and R76) reviewed for ADL (activities of daily living) in the sample of 19.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide perineum and catheter care in a manner that would prevent potential urinary tract infection (UTI). This applies to 4 of 5 residents (R23, R56, R71, R79) reviewed for incontinence and catheter care in the sample of 19.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to label and date medications once it was opened to determine the expiration date, and failed to remove or dispose narcotic medications that were in a broken sealed container. This applies to 10 residents (R56, R81, R9, R64, R76, R69, R24, R46, R62, R57) reviewed for medication storage and labeling.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to serve portion sizes as shown on the menu spreadsheets for the pureed diets. This applies to 6 of 6 residents (R23, R27, R42, R57, R61and R79) reviewed for pureed diets in the sample of 19.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to assess and provide splint and therapy services to residents, to prevent further reduction in ROM (range of motion). This applies to 2 of 3 residents (R23 and R32) reviewed for range of motion in the sample of 19.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow up on dental care recommendations of a resident who was experiencing tooth pain for over 6 months and required tooth extractions. This applies to 1 of 1 resident (R3) reviewed for dental services in the sample of 19.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy for antibiotic stewardship. This applies to all 92 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide proper infection control practices for 55 residents (R2 - R56) after a positive COVID-19 exposure and failed to follow their COVID-19 policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure temperatures in the building remained within a comfortable range for residents when the air conditioning was not functioning properly. The facility also failed to follow their hot weather policy and measure room temperatures and humidity levels when the air conditioning was not functioning properly to determine if resident safety could be maintained. This failure resulted in room temperatures as high as 91 degrees Fahrenheit in areas occupied by residents and residents complaining of feeling hot. The Immediate Jeopardy began on April 12, 2024, at 5:29 PM when the facility was notified by V9 (Account Manager HVAC-Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning Contractor) the facility would have no heating or cooling capacity whatsoever without necessary repairs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the administration failed to provide oversight and leadership to ensure hot weather policies and procedures were followed when the facility's air conditioning was not functioning properly. V1 (Administrator) was aware the facility did not have functioning air conditioning and did not ensure temperature and humidity levels were being checked as shown in the policy This applies to all 98 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to administer medications within the required timeframe. The facility also failed to obtain Physician's Orders to administer medications late. This applies to 25 of 27 residents (R1, R3, R5, R9, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R25, R26, R27, R28, R29, R30, 31) reviewed for timely medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide grooming, timely incontinence care, and assistance with transferring out of bed for residents who require assistance with ADLs (Activities of Daily Living). This applies to 3 of 3 residents (R1, R6 and R3) reviewed for ADL care in the sample of 7.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide physical therapy to R1. This applies to 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for physical therapy in the sample of 6.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents safety by not monitoring space heaters during a heating system failure and failed to ensure the safety of the residents during a loss of heat. This resulted in the facility having cold temperatures in the facility and the facility utilizing unmonitored space heaters. These failures resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy affecting the safety and health of all 111 residents residing in the facility when the facility experienced a heating system failure and placed 20 portable space heaters in resident rooms with no monitoring. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 1/12/2024 when the Facility placed 20 portable space heaters in resident rooms. V1, Administrator was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 1/24/24 at 10:00am. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that the ambient air temperatures in the building remained within a comfortable range during a heating system breakdown. This failure affected 30 residents (R1 and R3-R33) reviewed for comfortable environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an oral antibiotic as ordered. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor and apply interventions for residents experiencing weight loss. This failure resulted in a resident (R26) experiencing significant weight loss of 19.86% from 11/7/23 to 12/14/23. This applies to 2 of 2 residents (R26 and R34) reviewed for significant weight loss in a sample of 25.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to facilitate transportation services for resident's dialysis as ordered by the physician. This failure resulted in change of condition and hospitalization of R254. This applies to 1 of 1 resident (R254) reviewed for dialysis in a sample of 25.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly label, date, seal, store and serve food items in the kitchen. This applies to all residents that receive oral nutrition and foods prepared in the facility kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to educate and offer COVID-19 immunizations to 5 of 5 residents (R1, R5, R18, R34, & R50) and staff reviewed for COVID-19 immunizations in a sample of 25.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to keep resident call lights accessible and provide adequately sized incontinence briefs to residents. This applies to 6 of 6 residents (R28, R69, R2, R84, R83, and R93) reviewed for accommodation of needs in a sample of 25.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control measures while; providing medications for 3 residents (R12, R6, & R97), providing medical treatments/procedures for 1 resident (R97), providing resident care for 1 resident (R46), and failed to properly contain soiled linen and respiratory equipment for 1 resident (R12) in a sample of 25.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide influenza and or pneumococcal immunizations for 5 of 5 residents (R1, R5, R18, R34 & R50) reviewed for immunizations in a sample of 25.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess a resident for self-administration of medications and failed to obtain a physician's order for a resident to self-administer medications. This applies to 1 of 7 residents (R53) reviewed for medications in the sample of 25.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review. The facility failed to provide personal care assistance to 2 of 4 residents (R15 and R100) reviewed for ADL's (Activities of Daily Living) in a sample of 25 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly obtain blood samples from 2 of 2 diabetic residents (R79 and R204) that were reviewed for blood glucose monitoring in a sample of 25.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to identify environmental hazards that poses risks for potential accidents. This applies to 3 of 3 residents (R15, R44 and R49) reviewed for accidents/hazards in the sample of 25.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to conduct monthly medication reviews. This applies to 2 of 2 residents (R28 and R33) reviewed for monthly medication review by a pharmacist in a sample of 25 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered. There were 31 opportunities with 5 errors resulting in a 16.13% error rate. This applies to 2 of 6 residents (R2 & R6) observed in the medication pass in a sample of 25
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain temperature logs, label food items, and discard outdated food items. This applies to 3 of 3 residents (R6, R20 and R49) reviewed for personal food storage in a sample of 25 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that floor mats were provided while a resident was in bed to enhance resident safety and per plan of care. This applies to 1 of 3 (R1) residents reviewed for fall interventions in the sample of 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to effectively resolve and manage resident grievances for staff call light response. This applies to 5 of 10 residents (R1, R10-R12, R16) reviewed for call light response in a sample of 17.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide showers/bathing to residents dependent on staff for ADL (Activity of Daily Living) care. This applies to 5 of 7 residents (R1, R3, R5, R6, R9) reviewed for ADL assistance in a sample of 17.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from a physical restraint that was imposed for staff convenience. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for restraints in a sample of 8.
35 fire safety citations on file: 11 on September 12, 2025, 13 on October 24, 2024, 11 on December 15, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 28, 2025 | Fine | $14,505 |
| October 28, 2025 | Payment Denial | 38 days from October 28, 2025 |
| September 12, 2025 | Fine | $49,010 |
| June 23, 2025 | Fine | $14,505 |
| October 24, 2024 | Fine | $14,050 |
| October 24, 2024 | Fine | $16,065 |
| October 24, 2024 | Payment Denial | 83 days from November 22, 2024 |
| June 17, 2024 | Fine | $14,043 |
| June 17, 2024 | Payment Denial | 39 days from June 20, 2024 |
| November 28, 2023 | Fine | $67,977 |
| November 28, 2023 | Payment Denial | 56 days from January 17, 2024 |
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) | 3.22 | 3.45 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.46 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.83 | 3.07 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.92 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.83 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 67.7% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 56.3% | 41.8% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 4.59 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 3.38 on weekdays and 2.83 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.09 in April to June 2025 to 3.22 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 | 3.22 | 0.46 | 3.38 | 2.83 | 0.5% | 0 of 90 | 101 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.97 | 0.52 | 3.16 | 2.51 | 2.5% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.30 | 0.57 | 3.48 | 2.84 | 7.8% | 0 of 92 | 101 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.09 | 0.57 | 3.20 | 2.83 | 10.0% | 0 of 91 | 100 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 10.5 | 13.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.3 | 14.3 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.4 | 21.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.1 | 26.1 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.0 | 13.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Renwick Nursing and Rehab's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (36.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
36.8% this home
Worse 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. 120 eligible stays.
11.6% 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. 146 eligible stays.
8.2% 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. 78 eligible stays.
24.0% 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. 50 residents counted.
4.2% 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. 71 residents counted.
3.8% 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. 71 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: 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. 11 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: 3401 HENNEPIN OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Extended Care Clinical, a group of 9 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extended Care Clinical LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Extended Care Consulting LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Roth & Co, LLP | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/08/2025 | |
| Israel, Levi | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Miretzky, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Progress, Carolyn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/19/2023 | |
| Katz, Harold | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/04/2025 | |
| Rothner, William | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/04/2025 | |
| 3401 Hennepin Member LLC | Trustee of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Extended Care Clinical LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/04/2025 | |
| Extended Care Consulting LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/12/2025 | |
| Roth & Co, LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/04/2025 | |
| Haveric, Zlatko | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Progress, Carolyn | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/19/2023 |
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.