VENICE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Venice Health and Rehabilitation Center has received an F grade, which indicates poor performance with significant concerns. With a state rank of #679 out of 690, they are in the bottom half of nursing facilities in Florida, and #29 out of 30 in Sarasota County suggests there is only one local option that is better. The facility is showing improvement, as issues decreased from four in 2024 to two in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, rated at 4 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 35%, which is better than the state average. However, they have faced serious incidents, such as a resident falling and suffering a serious head injury due to staff not following care protocols, highlighting ongoing safety concerns despite some strengths.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Florida
- #679/690
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 35% turnover. Near Florida's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $17,185 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
- 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
- 21 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
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (35%)
13 points below Florida average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Florida average (3.2)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
11pts below 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 21 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
2 deficiencies
2 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect residents' right to be free from neglect by failing to ensure staff consistently provide safe nursing care to prevent avoida...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Based on record review, review of facility's policy and procedure, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure effective processes were in place to protect 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review by failing to make the necessary corrections for 2 (Residents #1...
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
Based on observation, facility policy and procedures review, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to store nebulizer inhalation equipment and bilevel positive air pressure (BiPAP) m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dial...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, facility policy and procedures review, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain urinary catheters in a safe and sanitary manner for 3(Residents #44, #5...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility policy and procedures, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately asse...
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
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 staff interview, the facility failed to promptly notify the physician of a change in condition, incl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, Resident and staff interview, the facility failed to identify, assess, address, and monitor individual underlying causes and contributing factors for decline in 4 ...
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 facility policies and procedures, review of clinical records and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate services and interventions fo...
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 staff interview, the facility failed to maintained medications in locked compartment when not under direct observation for 1 (400 hall) of 6 medi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0825
(Tag F0825)
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 provide Therapy Services as ordered by...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of the facility policy and procedure, resident and staff interview the facility failed to maintain a clean, and sanitary environment by failure to store resident personal ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure completion of the admission Minimum Data Sat (MDS) ass...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) as required by regulation fo...
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 Minimum Data Set (MDS) tracking records were submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within 14 days of comp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a clean and sanitary manner to prevent possible contamination of food on the tray line from dirty air vents. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2020
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or representative with a written summary of the baseline care plan including a summary of current medications and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to provide care and services to minimize the risk of infection during wound care for 1 (Resident #48) of 1 resident reviewed with...
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure proper storage, labeling, and dating of two insulin pens on 1 (600 cart) of 3 medication carts observed. This had the potential ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, interview, the facility failed to coordinate with the pharmacy to ensure the timely removal of expired medications in 2 of 2 emergency drug kits and 1 of 1 automat...
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
- • 35% turnover. Below Florida's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $17,185 in fines. Above average for Florida. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Venice Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns VENICE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Venice Center Staffed?
CMS rates VENICE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Venice Center?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at VENICE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2020 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 18 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 Venice Center?
VENICE HEALTH 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 SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 110 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in VENICE, Florida.
How Does Venice Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, VENICE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Venice Center?
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 Venice Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, VENICE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 Venice Center Stick Around?
VENICE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 35%, 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 Venice Center Ever Fined?
VENICE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $17,185 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Florida average of $33,251. 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 Venice Center on Any Federal Watch List?
VENICE HEALTH 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.