MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Miami Springs Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of C+, which means it is slightly above average but not particularly outstanding. It ranks #385 out of 690 facilities in Florida, placing it in the bottom half, and #36 out of 54 in Miami-Dade County, indicating that there are better local options available. The facility is improving, with the number of identified issues decreasing from 9 in 2023 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, rated at 4 out of 5 stars with a low turnover rate of 26%, which is significantly better than the state average. However, there have been some concerns, such as non-functioning telephones for residents and improper food storage practices, which could affect the health and well-being of the residents. On a positive note, the facility has no fines on record, and their RN coverage is higher than 93% of Florida facilities, which helps ensure better oversight of patient care.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Florida
- #385/690
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below Florida's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Florida facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 69 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Florida nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 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
-
Low Staff Turnover (26%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (26%)
22 points below Florida average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Florida average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
May 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2) Observation on 05/06/2025 at 10:05 AM of Staff J, Registered Nurse (RN) performing medication administration revealed; Staff J, RN prepared Resident # 152's medications. The door to Resident #152's...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to implement fall risk and seizure care plans for three...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all residents on the facility's Two South uni...
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to 1) store food under sanitary condition as evidence by failure in ensuring the 1 North Station Pantry snack/nourishment freezer...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to demonstrate effective plans of actions implemented to correct identified quality deficiencies in problem areas, as eviden...
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, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure the high temperature dish machine wash cycle was working properly. This has the potential to affect 176 out of 185 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure dignity during dining for one (resident #173) out of 45 sampled residents as evidenced by one facility staff was stan...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one resident (R # 43...
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 record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate Services and care related to fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0694
(Tag F0694)
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 follow the physician's orders for changing midline ...
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 record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper labeling and disposal of medications ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to employ a Director of Food and Nutrition Services with required qualifications that includes two or more years of experience i...
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
Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to demonstrate effective plan of actions were implemented to correct identified quality deficiencies in the problem area related...
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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the reach-in cooler was working properly. This has the potential to affect 169 out of 182 residents who eat orally re...
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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to 1) store food under sanitary condition by ensuring the proper temperatures in the reach-in cooler and 2) ensure the reach-in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 10/10/22 at 09:54 AM Resident #15 was observed in activities seated in wheel chair, coloring with other residents.
On 10/10/...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
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 maintain privacy for one (Resident # 137) out of one r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
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 meaningful activities for 1(Resident #21) out ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 flailed to provide adequate supervision ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
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 provide physician ordered thic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0808
(Tag F0808)
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 follow a physician ordered the...
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
Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to demonstrate effective plan of actions were implemented to correct identified quality deficiencies in problem prone area relat...
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 observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The issues included: fail...
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.
- • 26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below Florida's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Miami Springs's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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 Miami Springs Staffed?
CMS rates MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 26%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Miami Springs?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 24 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Miami Springs?
MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING 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 VENTURA SERVICES FLORIDA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 269 certified beds and approximately 187 residents (about 70% occupancy), it is a large facility located in MIAMI SPRINGS, Florida.
How Does Miami Springs Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (26%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Miami Springs?
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 Miami Springs Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Miami Springs Stick Around?
Staff at MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 26%, the facility is 20 percentage points below the Florida average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 30%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Miami Springs Ever Fined?
MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING 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 Miami Springs on Any Federal Watch List?
MIAMI SPRINGS NURSING 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.