CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Cedar Hill Nursing and Rehab Center has a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns and a poor overall reputation. Ranking #338 out of 690 facilities in Florida places it in the top half, but at #25 out of 34 in Duval County, it suggests there are better options nearby. The facility is improving, having decreased from 10 issues in 2023 to 6 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength with a turnover rate of 34%, lower than the state average, but there is concerning RN coverage that is less than 98% of facilities in Florida, meaning residents may not receive as much skilled nursing attention. Notably, the facility has faced critical issues, including a resident going missing for several hours due to a lack of supervision, as well as failing to implement adequate measures to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria in the water system, which poses health risks to vulnerable residents. While there are strengths in staffing stability and quality measures, these significant safety concerns should be carefully considered.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Florida
- #338/690
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 34% turnover. Near Florida's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $21,921 in fines. Higher than 58% of Florida facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (34%)
14 points below Florida average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Florida average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
11pts below Florida avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that four (Residents #169, #93, #81 and #102) residents from a total survey sample of 32 residents, were provided a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to maintain the physical en...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in safe operating condition. The kitchen's freezer door would not c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, facility pest control management documentation, and a review of the facili...
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 facility record review, staff interview, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive water management program for the purpose of red...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
3 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, resident and facility record reviews, and a review of the facility's policies titled Reporting Abuse ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, resident and facility record reviews, a review of the facility's policy titled Elopements (revised Fe...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a staff interview and a review of facility records, the facility failed to timely report an incident of neglect within ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
2 deficiencies
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by failing to ...
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
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all essential equipment in the kitchen was maintained in a safe operating condition. The walk-in freezer had a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
5 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
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 observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure r...
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 F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, review of resident medications and clinical records, and review of the facility's policy...
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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure clinical records were accurately documented and reflective of the treatme...
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
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of facility maintenance records, and interviews with staff, the facility failed to ensure 28 of 10...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews with residents and staff, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public by failing to a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2022
2 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, by fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2021
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0886
(Tag F0886)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure it met the requirements for testing frequency of asymptoma...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure it was free of pests and rodents. Live roaches were observed in the fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 34% turnover. Below Florida's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $21,921 in fines. Higher than 94% of Florida facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (39/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Florida, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center Staffed?
CMS rates CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 18 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center?
CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility is operated by ELIYAHU MIRLIS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 116 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in JACKSONVILLE, Florida.
How Does Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (34%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center Stick Around?
CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 34%, 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 Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center Ever Fined?
CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER has been fined $21,921 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Florida average of $33,298. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Cedar Hill Nursing And Rehab Center on Any Federal Watch List?
CEDAR HILL NURSING AND REHAB CENTER 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.