SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Solaris Healthcare Imperial has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average, but still has room for improvement. It ranks #420 out of 690 facilities in Florida, placing it in the bottom half, and #5 out of 11 in Collier County, meaning only a few local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2022 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, earning 4 out of 5 stars with a low turnover rate of 10%, which is well below the state average. However, they have concerning fines of $29,738, higher than 76% of Florida facilities, indicating repeated compliance problems. Additionally, there were serious incidents found during inspections, including inadequate investigation of resident falls and delays in answering call lights for residents, which could lead to injuries. There were also concerns regarding the care of a resident with a catheter, which was not secured properly, putting them at risk for infection. Overall, while the staffing and quality measures are positive aspects, the facility must address significant compliance issues to ensure resident safety.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Florida
- #420/690
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 10% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 38 points below Florida's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $29,738 in fines. Higher than 60% of Florida facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Florida. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (10%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (10%)
38 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
Below median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
9 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy and procedure, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to thoroughly investig...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, clinical record review, review of facility's policy and procedure, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary assistance with activities of daily...
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
Based on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and procedures and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide care and services to prevent a decline in range of mo...
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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedure, review of the clinical record, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain respiratory equipment in a sanitary manner ...
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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #70) of 5 residents reviewed had a diagno...
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 F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, facility policy and practices review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the Infection Preventionist had the required qualifications to perform the ...
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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The facility policy Catheter Care, Urinary with a revision date of 1/7/20 documented Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage...
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain sufficient staffing to ensure call lights wer...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedure, review of the clinical record and staff interviews the facility failed to store resident care equipment in a sanitary manner for 2 (Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
1 deficiency
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 F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based upon interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors by not administering medications in accordance with prescriber's orders for...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2022
6 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record accurately reflected the residents' wish...
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 observations, record review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure 2 (Residents #77 and #79) of 2 resident'...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, facility policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure 2 (Resident #65 and #80) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents were assessed for altern...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure its medication error rate remains below 5%. 25 oppo...
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, review of facility policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper labeling of medications in 1(North Unit Cart, B Hall) of 3 medication carts observed. The fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure collaboration of hospice services regarding medication for 1 resident (#28) of 8 hospice residents at the facility. Coordination of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2021
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility policies and procedures and staff interview, the facilit...
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
Based on observation, review of the facility's policies and procedure, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain appropriate infection prevention practices in the management of the...
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
- • 10% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 38 points below Florida's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $29,738 in fines. Higher than 94% of Florida facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
About This Facility
What is Solaris Healthcare Imperial's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL 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 Solaris Healthcare Imperial Staffed?
CMS rates SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 10%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Solaris Healthcare Imperial?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 17 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Solaris Healthcare Imperial?
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by SOLARIS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 113 certified beds and approximately 95 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in NAPLES, Florida.
How Does Solaris Healthcare Imperial Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (10%) 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 Solaris Healthcare Imperial?
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 Imperial Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL 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 Solaris Healthcare Imperial Stick Around?
Staff at SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 10%, the facility is 35 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 8%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Solaris Healthcare Imperial Ever Fined?
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL has been fined $29,738 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Florida average of $33,376. 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 Solaris Healthcare Imperial on Any Federal Watch List?
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE IMPERIAL 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.