RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Radiant Nursing and Rehab at Palatka has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good option for care, although not the top tier. It ranks #264 out of 690 in Florida, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and #2 out of 3 in Putnam County, meaning only one local facility is rated higher. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 2 in 2025, and staffing is a concern with a low rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 70%. While the facility has no fines on record, indicating compliance with regulations, it has shown less RN coverage than 92% of Florida facilities, which may impact resident care. Specific incidents highlighted by inspectors include delays in timely assessments for residents and incomplete food storage practices, suggesting areas needing improvement despite the overall good rating.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Florida
- #264/690
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 70% 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 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
23pts above Florida avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
22 points above Florida average of 48%
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
2 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 1 (Reside...
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principle...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
1 deficiency
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
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 inform the resident representative following a change in the reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
9 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's ...
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 ensure the residents who were unable to carry out act...
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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents received Midline intravenous catheter site dressing care and services in accordance with professional st...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not 5% or greate...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0773
(Tag F0773)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain laboratory service ordered by the physician for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for laboratory services, Resident #2.
Findings include:
R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were transmitted within 14 days of completion for 5 of 6 residents reviewed for resident assessments, Residents...
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 ensure foods were stored in accordance with professional standards in the kitchen freezer and in 1 of 1 nourishment rooms.
F...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident records were complete and accurate for 4 of 10 resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control standards of practice specific to hand hygiene during medication administration and c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2022
3 deficiencies
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 ensure nurse staffing information was posted on a daily basis.
Findings Include:
Observation of the posted nurse staffing in...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 kitchen equipment were maintained in a sanitary manner.
Findings Include:
During a tour of the main kitchen on 4/26/2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medical records related to meal intake percentages were complete for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition, Resident #3, and R...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • 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.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 70% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA 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 Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka Staffed?
CMS rates RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 70%, which is 23 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA during 2022 to 2025. These included: 15 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka?
RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 65 certified beds and approximately 58 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PALATKA, Florida.
How Does Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (70%) 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 Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka?
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 you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA 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 Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka Stick Around?
Staff turnover at RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA is high. At 70%, the facility is 23 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 62%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka Ever Fined?
RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA 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 Radiant Nursing And Rehab At Palatka on Any Federal Watch List?
RADIANT NURSING AND REHAB AT PALATKA 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.