LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

1270 SW MAIN BLVD, LAKE CITY, FL 32055 (386) 752-7900
For profit - Limited Liability company 95 Beds ROBERT SCHOENFELD Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#61 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Lake Montgomery Health and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #61 out of 690 facilities in Florida, placing it in the top half, and it is the best option among the four nursing homes in Columbia County. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, with a turnover rate of 56%, higher than the state average, and less RN coverage than 86% of Florida facilities, which might impact the level of care residents receive. On a positive note, the center has no fines on record, but recent inspections revealed concerns such as inaccurate resident assessments and failure to administer medications as prescribed, highlighting areas that need improvement.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Florida
#61/690
Top 8%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Florida facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 27 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 56%

10pts above Florida avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: ROBERT SCHOENFELD

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (56%)

8 points above Florida average of 48%

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

Jul 2025 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were accurate for 1 (Resident #19) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory services.Review of Resident #19 Mini...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were accurate for 1 (Resident #19) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory services.Review of Resident #19 Minimum Data Set (MDS) titled Quarterly dated 7/10/2025 documented resident did not use oxygen therapy.Review of Resident #19 vital task for oxygen saturations documented on 7/8/2025 at 12:53 PM oxygen via nasal cannula, on 7/7/2025 at 6:05 AM oxygen via nasal cannula, 7/5/2025 at 5:16 AM oxygen via nasal cannula, 7/4/2025 at 12:42 AM oxygen via nasal cannula, and 7/3/2025 at 3:38 AM oxygen via nasal cannula.Review of Resident #19 nurses notes dated 7/8/2025 read, O2 [oxygen] sats [saturation]: 97% Method: Oxygen via Nasal Cannula.Review of Resident #19 physician order dated 4/8/2025 read, Oxygen @ [at] 3 litters via nasal cannula for SOB [shortness of breath] no humidification as needed for SOB.During an interview on 7/31/2025 at 1:58 PM with Staff A MDS Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated, [Resident #19's name] Section O for oxygen needs to be updated, the nurses were not documenting on the treatment record but included the information in the nurses note and oxygen saturations vital record for the look back.Review of the facility policy and procedure titled MDS 3.0 Completion with a last review date of 1/31/2025 read, Policy: Resident are assessed, using a comprehensive assessment process, in order to identify care needs and to develop an interdisciplinary care plan. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. According to federal regulations, the facility conducts initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate and standardized assessment of each resident's functional capacity, using the RAI specified by the State.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was accur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was accurately completed for 2 of 6 residents reviewed (Residents #11, and #19). Findings include: 1) Review of Resident #11’s admission record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to residual schizophrenia (onset date: 3/26/2019), unspecified mood (affective) disorder (onset date: 3/26/2019), adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood (onset date: 3/26/2019), major depressive disorder (onset date: 1/31/2024), generalized anxiety disorder (onset date: 1/31/2024), paranoid schizophrenia (onset date: 3/26/2019), and other specified persistent mood disorders (onset date: 3/26/2019). Review of Resident #11’s PASSR dated 7/10/2025 did not show persistent mood disorder under mental illness or suspected mental illness under Section I: PASSR Screen Decision-Making. Review of Resident #11’s psychiatry subsequent note dated 7/1/2025 read, “Chief complaint: Depression, anxiety, mood disorder, schizophrenia and TD [Tardive Dyskinesia].” Review of Resident #11’s quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] showed unspecified mood (affective) disorder under Section I- Active Diagnoses. During an interview on 7/31/2025 at 1:45 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, “[Resident #11’s name] PASSR needed to be updated. I did not know we could add diagnosis in the other section.” 2) Review of Resident #19’s medical record showed the resident was originally admitted on [DATE] and most recently admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to brief psychotic disorder (onset date: 10/12/2024), major depressive disorder (onset date: 10/12/2024), other specified persistent mood disorders (onset date: 10/12/2024), generalized anxiety disorder (onset date: 10/12/2024), cerebral ischemia, and urinary tract infection. Review of Resident #19’s PASRR dated 10/9/2025 did not show brief psychotic disorder, major depressive disorder, and other specified persistent mood disorders under mental illness or suspected mental illness under Section I: PASSR Screen Decision-Making. Review of Resident #19’s psychiatry subsequent note dated 7/8/2025 read, “Chief complaint: Depression, anxiety, dementia, mood disorder, psychosis, and Parkinson’s disease.” Review of Resident #19’s quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] showed depression, psychotic, and anxiety as part of the active diagnosis under Section I- Active Diagnoses. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 2:45 PM, the DON stated, “[Resident #19’s name] PASRR needs to be updated to include the diagnosis that were missing.”
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered by physician for 2 of 7 residents reviewed for medication management (Residents #5 and #11)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered by physician for 2 of 7 residents reviewed for medication management (Residents #5 and #11). Findings include: 1) Review of Resident #5's physician order dated 9/2/2024 read, Metoprolol Tartrate Oral Tablet 50 MG [Milligram] (Metoprolol Tartrate), Give 50 mg by mouth every 12 hours for Beta Blocker. Review of Resident #5's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2025 for administration of Metoprolol Tartrate Tablet 50 mg showed code 4 (vitals outside of parameters for administration) was documented on 6/4/2025 at 9:00 PM for the blood pressure of 115/60 and pulse of 66, on 6/7/2025 at 9:00 PM for the blood pressure of 109/65 and pulse of 80, on 6/8/2025 at 9:00 PM for the blood pressure of 111/69 and pulse of 70, on 6/19/2025 at 9:00 PM for the blood pressure of 107/61 and pulse of 66, and on 6/21/2025 at 9:00 PM for the blood pressure of 111/69 and pulse of 62. Review of Resident #5's MAR for July 2025 for administration of Metoprolol Tartrate Tablet 50 mg showed code 4 was documented on 7/19/2025 at 9:00 AM for the blood pressure of 110/66 and pulse of 60 and at 9:00 PM for the blood pressure of 112/61 and pulse of 59, and on 7/22/2025 for the blood pressure of 105/43 and pulse of 67. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 8:30 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, The nurses were holding the medication without an order. If they have questions, they should contact the provider and let him about their concern. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 4:05 PM, the Medical Doctor #1 stated, Nurses should not be holding medications that do not have parameter. If they have any questions, they need to call me. This was not reported to me. No medical concerns have been reported to be recently in regards to [Resident #5's name] related to his medication. During an interview on 7/31/2025 at 3:55 PM, Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), stated, I held [Resident #5's name] blood pressure medication because it was low. I did not let the provider know. 2) Review of Resident #11's physician order dated 5/8/2025 read, Insulin Glargine Solution 100 UNIT/ML [milliliter], Inject 20 unit subcutaneously two times a day for diabetes if blood sugar is less than 150 hold Lantus. Review of Resident #11's MAR for July 2025 showed Lantus was administered at on 7/2/2025 at 6:00 AM for the blood sugar of 77; on 7/4/2025 at 6:00 AM for the blood sugar of 75 and at 9:00 PM for the blood sugar of 100; on 7/8/2025 at 6:00 AM for the blood sugar of 120; on 7/9/2025 at 6:00 AM for the blood sugar of 78; on 7/11/2025 at 6:00 AM for the blood sugar of 85; on 7/12/2025 at 9:00 PM for the blood sugar of 121; on 7/13/2025 at 9:00 PM for the blood sugar of 121; on 7/18/2025 at 6:00 AM for the blood sugar of 87 and at 9:00 PM for the blood sugar of 98; on 7/22/2025 at 6:00 AM for the blood sugar of 90; and on 7/27/2025 at 6:00 AM for the blood sugar of 112, and at 9:00 PM for the blood sugar of 148. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 9:54 AM, the DON stated, [The Medical Doctor #2's name] will be taking off the parameters and she actually said [Resident #11's name] A1C [Glycated Hemoglobin] has improved. I also spoke to the medical director and he said no harm was done to the patient. I also spoke to the medical director about [Resident #5's name] blood pressure and there were no concerns with the blood pressure. He was going to discontinue one of the blood pressure medications because he had two. Nurses should always follow doctor's orders. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 11:11 AM, Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN), stated, Usually long-acting medication is never stop and this order probably was new. I was not reading it. I read the order that shows up on the screen. I feel I should have been more careful and read the order. Also, I should contact the provider if I have any questions about the orders. We should always follow doctor's parameters. It is our obligation. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 12:21 PM, Staff C, LPN, stated, If he [Resident #11] has parameters to hold medication, I would have definitely held it. I don't recall those days. It might have been an error, because I would hold the medication if he has parameters. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 12:23 PM, Staff D, RN, stated, I don't recall. I will say this Lantus is a 24-hour insulin that would be my only reason for giving it. That is a terrible mistake. Orders should show the parameters. I know there is parameters for other insulins, and he does have some issues with blood sugar. I should have followed parameters. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 1:01 PM, the Medical Doctor #1 stated, I have a standard for my parameters. I have not been notified of any medical concerns. I plan to stop [Resident #11's name] insulin depending on the next A1C results. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Medication Administration with the last review date of 1/31/2025 read, Policy: Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection.
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate nurse staffing information was posted on a daily basis. Findings include: During an observation on 7/28/2025 at 9:39 AM, nurs...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate nurse staffing information was posted on a daily basis. Findings include: During an observation on 7/28/2025 at 9:39 AM, nurse staffing information dated 7/27/2025 was posted immediately after entering the residential area (Photographic evidence obtained). During an interview on 7/29/2025 at 2:39 PM, the Director of Nursing stated, The scheduler is the one responsible for updating the staff posting daily. She arrives around 6 AM and by 8 AM, the posting should be updated. During an interview on 7/31/2025 at 8:19 AM, the Scheduler stated, I will normally update the staff posting when I get to the facility that is around 8 to 8:30 AM. I had it ready in the backroom on Monday [7/28/2025] and was trying to still get the numbers correct during the morning routine. I don't have access to the census. I have to wait on payroll or the Business Office Manager. During an interview on 7/31/2025 at 12:45 PM, the Business Office Manager stated, I had no delays on Monday that I recall that would have not allowed me to provide the census in a timely manner. During an interview on 7/31/2025 at 12:46 PM, the Administrator stated, There is no policy for the posting of the federal staffing, but my expectation would be that by 9:00 AM, it is posted.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide laboratory services to meet the needs of the residents for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for medication management (Resident #19). Find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide laboratory services to meet the needs of the residents for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for medication management (Resident #19). Findings include: Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/7/2025 at 5:19 PM read, Resident daughter came to nursing reporting that mother is hallucinating, talking to someone that is not there and thinking someone is watching here. Will notify MD [Medical Doctor] and Psych [Psychiatrist]. Review of Resident #19's psychiatry subsequent note dated 7/8/2025 read, Chief complaint: Depression, anxiety, mood disorder, psychosis, and Parkinson's disease. Reason for Today's encounter: Today I saw the patient as it was reported to me that patient is unstable requiring psychiatric assessment. History of present illness . Today I saw the patient as it was reported to me that patient is unstable requiring psychiatric assessment. As per collected information, staff reported increased anxiety. Patient come to front lobby and pray all the time. Dementia is persisting, but no other behaviors noted. Assessment and plan: I feel the symptoms are occurring due to exacerbation of underlying depression and anxiety disorder. The symptoms occur almost daily and causing severe distress. Therefore, I decided to make medication changes to stabilize the symptoms Plan of action: I have decided to continue Buspirone along with Clonazepam for anxiety and Donepezil to treat dementia. Medication rationale and adverse effects: Dry mouth, headache, drowsiness, fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, decreased appetite, increased sweating, dizziness, and insomnia. Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/10/2025 at 5:51 PM read, res [Resident] noted to be having conversations with past relatives. md [Medical Doctor] made aware and ua [urine analysis] ordered. vitals at baseline. plan of care continues. Review of Resident #19's physician order dated 7/11/2025 read, UA w [with]/culture and sensitivity STAT [immediately] for lab. Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/11/2025 at 8:36 AM read, Resident observed sitting up front by the doors and claims to be waiting on her brother. After speaking to daughter she says her mother prays and that family members talk to her through it. Her brother lives out of state and does not come down to visit. Review of Resident #19's lab result report dated 7/14/2025 showed invalid result for urinalysis w/reflex to culture. Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/19/2025 at 12:29 AM read, Behavior Monitoring- Observe for (specify resident's behavior). Document: 'Y' if the resident is exhibiting behaviors. 'N' if resident is not exhibiting behaviors. If 'Y' document in the PN's [progress notes]. every shift. Was a behavior observed? YES. Resident sitting in front lobby believing family is coming. Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/20/2025 at 7:35 AM read, Behavior Monitoring- Observe for (specify resident's behavior). Document: 'Y' if the resident is exhibiting behaviors. 'N' if resident is not exhibiting behaviors. If 'Y' document in the PN's. every shift. Was a behavior observed? YES. Resident sat up in front lobby and refused to go to bed, insisted that her brother was coming to pick her up. Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/21/2025 at 2:59 PM read, Resident has been sitting up front by the door. She refused to eat or take a shower. MD notified and orders put in regarding her UA. Will continue to monitor. Review of the text message conversation with the Director of Nursing (DON) dated 7/21/2025 at 12:54 PM read, [Resident #19's last name] has been refusing to eat and leave from in front of the front door for the past 3-4 days. She says she is waiting on family members who talk to her through her prayers. Her daughter says she progressed this same way at the last facility before she started attempting to leave. The U/A results show no bacteria seen but elevated WBC [White Blood Cell] leukocytes, and hyaline casts. I am trying to look into the c/s [culture and sensitivity] now. It's shown being ordered but no results are here. The C/S was invalid. We will reorder and it will go out in the morning. Can she get something in the mean time to hold over until the results come back? Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/22/2025 at 1:26 PM read, Resident taking antibiotic treatment of UTI [Urinary Tract Infection] started on 7/21/2025. Resident continues sitting front entrance periods of times during the shift, however she has participated in meals and activities today. Resident took a nap in her bed after lunch. No s/s [signs and symptoms] of adverse reactions noted. Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/23/2025 at 2:55 PM read, Resident has been sitting up front by the door since I came onto shift at approx. [approximately] 8 am. She is refusing to come to bed or eat claiming she is not hungry. She is getting agitated when asked to lay down. MD notified. Daughter says she will be in after work to try and talk to her. Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/24/2025 at 12:11 AM read, Continues on ABT [Antibiotic Therapy] for UTI. No adverse reactions noted. temp [temperature] 97.3. Resting in bed with eyes closes. Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/24/2025 at 12:34 AM read, Due to the poor vitals, 911 was called. They assessed her and the resident was discharged to the hospital. Review of Resident #19's progress note dated 7/24/2025 at 1:25 PM read, patient aggressive behavior, attempting to hit at staff and push staff to stand up, educated on unsteadiness and being careful not to fall, patient replies I no fall, behavior inappropriate at this time. notified [Medical Doctor #1's name] that patient has not changed with cipro treatment for uti, asked [Medical Doctor #1's name] for a broad spectrum abt [antibiotics] while we wait for culture due to not noticing a change with patient since treatment started. new order Augmentin 500 mg bid [milligram twice a day] for 7 days. Review of Resident #19 progress note dated 7/24/2025 at 2:09 PM read, Resident was walking to the bathroom and fell from generalized weakness and fatigue. She has not been sleeping or eating well. Daughter and MD have been notified. She then refused to sit down and walk away from the winding saying she was waiting on someone. She then became combative. MD changed antibiotics for uti. No s/s or adverse reactions observed. Review of Resident #19's hospital note dated 7/25/2025 read, In the ED [Emergency Department], CT [Computed Tomography] abdomen pelvic shows no acute findings except for distended bladder, creatinine of 5.7, BUN [Blood Urea Nitrogen] 118, urinalysis with leuko esterase, concerning of mild UTI. Review of Resident #19's lab results with the collection date of 7/24/2025 and report date of 7/28/2025 documented urine culture with no growth after 48 hours. Review of laboratory order history for Resident #19 showed pending status for urinalysis w/reflex to culture on 7/11/2025, and on pending collection status on 7/14/2025 and on final status on 7/24/2024. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 4:00 PM, the Medical Doctor #1 stated, We were in the process of finding out the reason behind [Resident #19 name] altered mental status since she was having signs of confusion. I gave the order [Urinalysis and culture and sensitivity] as a stat order. It should have been done as stat if not the same day the next day if possible. I ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic while we were waiting for the results of the labs. From 7/14/2025 to 7/24/2025 is 10 day. The culture and sensitivity should have been done quicker. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 4:25 PM, the DON stated, [Laboratory's name] comes Tuesday and Thursdays. They first started saying they come every day and now they only come Tuesdays and Thursdays. We have lots of problems with them. They came in on 7/11/2025 and collected the urine. The staff kept calling and they did not have the results. That is why we recollected on 7/14/2025. We have not done a performance improvement plan. The nurses kept calling to find out. Usually, the order will be placed once the urine is collected. During an interview on 7/30/2025 at 4:53 PM, Laboratory Medical Records Representative stated, Per our contract, we will collect STAT orders any day. We are not able to do cultures and sensitivity as a stat order. They have to be ordered as a regular run. The order was a stat order and the urine analysis was drop off at the hospital. Cultures take 72 hours and we are not allowed to leave it at the hospital. We let the nurses know they have to do a new order and collect for regular run. We will communicate this information via the chat when the nurse is placing the order. I see an order placed on 7/14/2025 and no new order or communication with us from the facility until 7/24/2025. During an interview on 7/31/2025 at 8:23 AM, the DON stated, The urine was collected and showed no bacteria, but we were awaiting the culture and sensitivity. [Resident #19's name] was having signs and symptoms and we got psych involved also. We thought it would be psych and they saw her and adjusted her medication. There was no bacteria in the urine. That is why the doctor did not order anything until we called and requested antibiotics to be ordered while we waited for the lab results. During an interview on 7/31/2025 at 10:04 AM, Staff F, Registered Nurse, stated, The culture and sensitivity was collected and it was invalid. On 7/21/2025, I reached out to the provider and started to try to get a urine specimen to send to the lab to get a culture and sensitivity. She shares a bathroom and even though we were trying, we were able to collect it on Wednesday night [7/23/2025] and the lab came that next Thursday morning [7/24/2025]. The urine culture came back with no growth. We reached out to the provider and kept waiting on the lab. Since she had behaviors mixed with UTI, we were trying to figure out what was the underlying cause. She was ordered antibiotics, but not all worked. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Laboratory Services and Reporting with the last review date of 1/31/2025 read, Policy: The facility must provide or obtain laboratory services when ordered by a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist in accordance with state law. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility must provide or obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents. 2. The facility is responsible for timeliness of the services.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was properly stored in 1 of 2 nourishment rooms. Findings include: During an observation of the nourishment room ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was properly stored in 1 of 2 nourishment rooms. Findings include: During an observation of the nourishment room on C Hall on 7/28/2025 at 9:35 AM, there were two unlabeled and undated plastic bags containing unknown food items in the freezer. There was unlabeled and undated cloth lunch box containing unknown food item in the refrigerator drawer. During an interview on 7/28/2025 at 9:37 AM, the Dietary Manager stated the food should have been labeled and dated. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Use and Storage of Food Brought in by Family or Visitors with the last review date of 1/31/2025 read, Policy: It is the right of the residents of this facility to have food brought in by family or other visitors, however, the food must be handled in a way to ensure the safety of the residents. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines. 2. All food items that are already prepared by the family or visitor brought in must be labeled with content and dated.
Apr 2024 2 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 observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment for residents (Photographic evidence obtained). The findings include: During an observation of laun...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment for residents (Photographic evidence obtained). The findings include: During an observation of laundry room on 4/10/2024 at 2:50 PM with the Maintenance Director, Director of Housekeeping and Laundry, and Staff C, Laundry Assistant, one of the two washing machines was not working. In the washing machine room, there were linen cans with no covers, a large buildup of garbage, debris, and lint behind the washing machines, a window screen propped on the floor next to the working washing machine with a large amount of garbage and debris around it, and on debris and lint on the air conditioning unit. In the lint area of Dryer #1 and Dryer #2, there was a large buildup of dust and lint. In the drum of Dryer #2, there was a large buildup of brown, melted, unidentified matter. Dryer #2's door did not latch. In the bottom of the clean linen cart, there was a buildup of garbage and debris. The carts in the dryer room which held the clean linens were uncovered. During an interview on 4/10/2024 approximately at 2:55 PM, the Director of Housekeeping and Laundry stated the washing machine had been broken for a couple of weeks and it was affecting their ability to keep up with laundry needs. During an interview on 4/10/2024 approximately at 2:57 PM, the Maintenance Director stated there was a window air conditioning unit in the window, preventing the screen from fitting into the window properly, and stated that the facility never cleaned and scraped the dryer drums. During an interview on 4/10/2024 approximately at 3:00 PM, Staff C, Laundry Assistant, stated that the latch was broken. During an observation on 4/10/2024 approximately at 3:10 PM, inside the shower room on the C-Hallway, there was one disinfectant cleaner with bleach spray lying near a stack of towels, a drink, a package of cookies, and a cell phone on the sink counter. The freezer section of the specimen refrigerator located in the dirty utility room of the C-Hallway had a buildup of ice. Three ceiling vents located on the C-Hallway had a buildup of dust, lint, and a black substance. In the Medication Room on the C-Hallway, there were supply boxes stacked on top of the upper cabinets, reaching the ceiling. The wash sink in the soiled room on the B-Hallway was broken. During an interview on 4/10/2024 approximately at 3:15 PM, the Maintenance Director confirmed the findings and was unable to tell how long the wash sink had been broken.
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, the facility failed to ensure nutritional interventions were provided in a t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nutritional interventions were provided in a timely manner for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for nutrition, Resident #4. The findings include: During an interview on 4/8/2024 at 10:27 AM, Resident #4 stated the food at the facility was cold and over seasoned and that she often asked for a substitute which was normally a sandwich. The resident stated she had lost weight since being admitted to the facility. Review of Resident #4's admission record showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and pressure injuries. Review of Resident #4's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. Review of Resident #4's care plan, last reviewed on 1/24/2024, showed the resident was at nutritional risk and was experiencing weight loss despite having a fair to good oral intake. Review of Resident #4's care plan, last reviewed on 3/12/2024, showed the resident was care planned for alteration in skin integrity related to stage 4 pressure ulcer on her sacrum with history of wound infection and is at ongoing risk for further breakdown. Review of Resident #4's weights showed 188 pounds on 10/10/2023, and 150 pounds on 4/9/2024, which indicated the resident had 20.21% weight loss since she was admitted to the facility. Review of Resident #4's Skin and Wound Notes documented by the Wound Nurse Practitioner revealed the post-debridement measurement of the wound was 2.1 x 0.9 x 0.2 centimeters (cm) on 4/9/2024 at 9:18 AM, 2.1 x 1.3 x 0.3 cm on 3/19/2024 at 8:30 AM, and 2.3 x 2.1 x 0.4 cm on 2/20/2024 at 8:27 AM. Review of Resident #4's Nutrition/Dietary Notes dated 11/16/2023 and 2/23/2024 revealed the Registered Dietitian was aware that the resident had lost weight and that her intervention was to provide snacks. Review of Resident #4's meal consumption log documented by the Certified Nursing Assistants revealed the resident ate 50-100% of all meals with the exception of three meals during a 30-day look back period. During observations on 4/8/2024, 4/9/2024, and 4/10/2024, Resident #4 consumed 60-80% of each of her meals. During an interview on 4/10/2024 at 8:45 AM, the Consultant Dietitian stated she was aware that Resident #4 had a significant weight loss and that she had not started supplements for her yet. She stated she saw the weight that had been done on 4/9/24.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Florida.
  • • 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.
Concerns
  • • 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Lake Montgomery Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Lake Montgomery Center Staffed?

CMS rates LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lake Montgomery Center?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2024 to 2025. These included: 8 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Lake Montgomery Center?

LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 ROBERT SCHOENFELD, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 95 certified beds and approximately 85 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LAKE CITY, Florida.

How Does Lake Montgomery Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (56%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lake Montgomery Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 high staff turnover rate.

Is Lake Montgomery Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 5-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 Lake Montgomery Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Lake Montgomery Center Ever Fined?

LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Lake Montgomery Center on Any Federal Watch List?

LAKE MONTGOMERY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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.