HARBORVIEW SARASOTA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Harborview Sarasota has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #503 out of 690 nursing homes in Florida, placing it in the bottom half, and #18 out of 30 in Sarasota County, meaning there are better options nearby. While the facility is showing improvement in some areas, with reported issues decreasing from five to two over the past year, it still has a high staffing turnover rate of 56%, which is concerning compared to the state average of 42%. The nursing home has faced fines totaling $67,445, which is higher than 88% of similar facilities in Florida, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents, such as a failure to protect residents from mental and verbal abuse and maintaining a sanitary environment, highlight areas where care is lacking, although it does have good quality measures in place.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Florida
- #503/690
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $67,445 in fines. Higher than 79% of Florida facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Florida. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Florida average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Florida avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
8 points above Florida average of 48%
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
May 2025
2 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, review of policy and procedures and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed t...
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
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 review of policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the nece...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
5 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 record review, review of the facility's policies and procedures, staff and resident interview the facility failed to im...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff, and resident interviews the facility failed to identify and promptly notify the phys...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of facility's policies and procedures, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to mainta...
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 F0745
(Tag F0745)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interview, the facility interview and record review the facility failed to implement ...
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's policy and procedure, and staff interview the facility failed to safely store medications to prevent unauthorized access.
The findings included:
A Review of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record and staff interviews, the facility failed to have processes in place to ensure an accurat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, review of the clinical records, review of facility policies and procedures, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement meaningful resident centered activities to mee...
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 observations, facility policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to secure medication by leaving two loose pills on top of an unlocked, unattended medication cart and secure a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
On 6/8/22 at 12:00 p.m., in an interview Resident #53 said she keeps her cigarettes and lighter with her. Resident #53 cigarettes were observed in the basket of her walker.
On 6/8/22 at 12:05 p.m., d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on staff interviews and staff record reviews, the facility failed to ensure 4 (Staff E, H, I, and J) of 4 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)'s employee records reviewed had a performance review c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of the facility records and staff interviews the facility failed to provide documentation of an updated, written agreement for the provision of hospice services to reflect current owne...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0943
(Tag F0943)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 5 (Staff L, M, N, O and P) of 10 staff reviewed had the required education and training in abuse, neglect, and exploitation. F...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2020
2 deficiencies
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, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 (Resident #49 and #165) of 2 residents reviewed for accident hazards were assessed for the need a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment free from...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 harm violation(s), $67,445 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 16 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $67,445 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Florida. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (20/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Harborview Sarasota's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HARBORVIEW SARASOTA an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Florida, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Harborview Sarasota Staffed?
CMS rates HARBORVIEW SARASOTA's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below 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 Harborview Sarasota?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at HARBORVIEW SARASOTA during 2020 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 15 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Harborview Sarasota?
HARBORVIEW SARASOTA 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 BENJAMIN LANDA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 81 certified beds and approximately 76 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SARASOTA, Florida.
How Does Harborview Sarasota Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, HARBORVIEW SARASOTA's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Harborview Sarasota?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Harborview Sarasota Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HARBORVIEW SARASOTA has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 2-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 Harborview Sarasota Stick Around?
Staff turnover at HARBORVIEW SARASOTA 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 Harborview Sarasota Ever Fined?
HARBORVIEW SARASOTA has been fined $67,445 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Florida average of $33,753. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Harborview Sarasota on Any Federal Watch List?
HARBORVIEW SARASOTA 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.