SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families, sitting in the top half of Florida nursing homes at #277 out of 690. Within Broward County, it ranks #15 of 33, meaning there are only 14 local facilities that are rated higher. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of reported issues increasing from 4 in 2023 to 5 in 2024. Staffing is a strength here, with a 4 out of 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 30%, which is significantly lower than the state average of 42%. Notably, there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign, and the facility offers more RN coverage than 79% of Florida nursing homes. However, there are some concerning incidents, such as failing to properly administer insulin for a resident, not monitoring the nutritional needs of another resident receiving tube feeding, and not ensuring that oxygen tubing was changed on schedule for residents requiring oxygen therapy. These issues highlight areas for improvement despite the facility's strengths. Overall, while Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek has solid ratings and staffing, families should be aware of the recent increase in compliance issues.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Florida
- #277/690
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 30% turnover. Near Florida's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Florida facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Florida. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 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 (30%)
18 points below Florida average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
15pts below Florida avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Jul 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality practice during...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to identify, monitor, and implement interventions con...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure timely labeling and changing of oxygen tubi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective Quality Assuranc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to follow infection control practices and failed to f...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan for advance directive for code status and fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. During an observation conducted on 05/08/23 at 10:00 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER], there was peeling paint next to the closet cl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assist during dining for 1 of 1 sampled resident revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to follow tube feeding physician orders for 1 of 1 sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2022
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5) During an observational screening tour conducted on 01/24/22 at 10:52 AM, Resident #85
was observed with long, sharp, fingern...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to follow prescribed fluid restriction; and failed to follow up with a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of policy and procedure, it was determined that the facility failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide restorative nursing services to prevent worse...
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** Based on interview observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate Urinary catheter care to prevent cath...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately assess the nutritio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to post the required daily nurse staffing data in a prominent place accessible for viewing by all residents and visitors.
The find...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of policy and procedure, it was determined that the facility failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview determined that the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly to ensure a potential health hazard.
The findings included:
1. In an observation condu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the dishwashing system in the central kitchen in a safe operating condition.
The findings included:
In an o...
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 Florida facilities.
- • 30% turnover. Below Florida's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Florida, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek Staffed?
CMS rates SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK during 2022 to 2024. These included: 19 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek?
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK 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 SOLARIS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 115 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in COCONUT CREEK, Florida.
How Does Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek?
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 Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek Stick Around?
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK has a staff turnover rate of 30%, which is about average for Florida 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 Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek Ever Fined?
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK 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 Solaris Healthcare Coconut Creek on Any Federal Watch List?
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK 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.