BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL)
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Brookdale University Park SNF in Birmingham, Alabama, has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance and some concerns. It ranks #188 out of 223 nursing homes in Alabama, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and #22 out of 34 in Jefferson County, meaning there are only a few better local options. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2019 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 45%, which is below the state average of 48%, suggesting a stable workforce. However, there have been specific concerns, such as failure to maintain proper hygiene in the laundry area, including not sanitizing hands after handling soiled linens, and not labeling food items properly, which raises potential health risks for residents. While the facility has no fines on record and decent RN coverage, the overall health inspection rating of 1 out of 5 is a significant red flag.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Alabama
- #188/223
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 45% turnover. Near Alabama's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Alabama facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 43 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Alabama. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (45%)
3 points below Alabama average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Alabama average (2.9)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Alabama avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Jun 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, resident record review, review of a facility policy titled Resident Medication Rights, and the facility inv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, resident record review, review of a facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect & Exploitation Policy, and the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, resident record review, review of a facility policy titled Procedure: Wound Care, and review of the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and the facility policy titled Psychotropic Drug Management Policy the facility failed to en...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and the facility policy titled Medication Errors the facility failed to ensure Resident Iden...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, resident record review, a review of the facility's pharmacy policy titled, 8.2 Disposal/ Destruction of Exp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interviews, review of the the 2022 United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, and review of a facility policy titled Food-Related Garbage and Refuse Disp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policies titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, and Departmental (Environmental Services)-Laundry and Linen the facility failed to ensure resident laundry was...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2019
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record reviews and review of a facility policy titled, Administering Medications, the facility failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record reviews, review of a facility policy titled, Documentation of Medication Administration, and r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interview, review of a facility policy titled, Labeling, and review of the 2017 U.S. (United States) Public Health Service Food Code, the facility failed to ensure:
1. open foo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2018
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and review of a policy titled Care Plans-Comprehensive the facility failed to ensure Resident Id...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #196 had a physicia...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A review of a policy titled Prevention of Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infection, last revised 7/2015, documented: .The Pur...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, review of a document titled, Student and Group Transcript Report and a facility policy titled In-Service Training Program, Nurse Aide, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and review of a facility policy titled, 8.2 Disposal/Destruction of Expired or Discontinued Medication , the facility failed to ensure that expired medication was not s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interview and review of facility policy titled, Labeling, and 2017 U.S. (United States) Public Health Service Food Code, the facility failed to ensure:
1. open food items were ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Alabama facilities.
- • 45% turnover. Below Alabama's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Brookdale University Park Snf (Al)'s CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL) an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Alabama, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Brookdale University Park Snf (Al) Staffed?
CMS rates BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL)'s staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Alabama average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Brookdale University Park Snf (Al)?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL) during 2018 to 2024. These included: 17 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Brookdale University Park Snf (Al)?
BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL) is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 66 certified beds and approximately 56 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BIRMINGHAM, Alabama.
How Does Brookdale University Park Snf (Al) Compare to Other Alabama Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Alabama, BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL)'s overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Brookdale University Park Snf (Al)?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Brookdale University Park Snf (Al) Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL) has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Alabama. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Brookdale University Park Snf (Al) Stick Around?
BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL) has a staff turnover rate of 45%, which is about average for Alabama nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Brookdale University Park Snf (Al) Ever Fined?
BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL) has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Brookdale University Park Snf (Al) on Any Federal Watch List?
BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY PARK SNF (AL) is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.