SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Springs at Lake Pointe Woods has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the care provided at this facility. With a state rank of #567 out of 690, they are in the bottom half of nursing homes in Florida, and #19 out of 30 in Sarasota County, meaning there are many better options nearby. The facility's performance is stable, with 14 issues identified during inspections, including one critical finding where a cognitively impaired resident wandered outside unsupervised, posing a serious risk. Staffing is average with a 3/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 43%, which is on par with the state average, but they still have a concerning health inspection score of 1/5 stars. Additionally, $22,856 in fines indicates some compliance issues, while the facility has average RN coverage, which is important for catching potential problems that nursing assistants might miss.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Florida
- #567/690
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near Florida's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $22,856 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Florida. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below Florida average of 48%
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%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
2 deficiencies
2 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 record review, review of facility's policies and procedures and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect the re...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review, review of facility's policies and procedures and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect the re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · 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, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to protect the right to be free from abuse for 1 (Resident #2) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse.
The findings included:
Review of the undat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
7 deficiencies
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility neglected to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect. The facility failed to provide physician ordered treatment of pressure ulcer...
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
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), and make the necessary cor...
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
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision prevent falls for 2 res...
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 record review, staff interview, and observation the facility failed to maintain an indwelling catheter in a safe and sanitary manner for 1(Resident #82) of 1 resident sampled with an indwelli...
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 procedures, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide oxygen therapy, in accordance with physician orders, for 1 (Residents...
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 F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure insulin was p...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 a comfortable safe temperature within the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
3 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure they provided an ongoing progra...
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 observation, record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 resident (Resident #35) of 4...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility the facility failed to maintain an effective water management program to minimize the risk of outbreak of water borne pathogens.
The fin...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 43% turnover. Below Florida's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $22,856 in fines. Higher than 94% of Florida facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Springs At Lake Pointe Woods's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS 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 Springs At Lake Pointe Woods Staffed?
CMS rates SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Springs At Lake Pointe Woods?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 11 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Springs At Lake Pointe Woods?
SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS 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 SUMMITT CARE II, INC., a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 101 certified beds and approximately 98 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SARASOTA, Florida.
How Does Springs At Lake Pointe Woods Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Springs At Lake Pointe Woods?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 Immediate Jeopardy citations and the substantiated abuse finding on record.
Is Springs At Lake Pointe Woods Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). 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 Springs At Lake Pointe Woods Stick Around?
SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for Florida nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Springs At Lake Pointe Woods Ever Fined?
SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS has been fined $22,856 across 5 penalty actions. This is below the Florida average of $33,307. 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 Springs At Lake Pointe Woods on Any Federal Watch List?
SPRINGS AT LAKE POINTE WOODS 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.