ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Alden Courts of Waterford in Aurora, Illinois has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice, falling in the upper range of quality care. It ranks #94 out of 665 nursing homes in Illinois, placing it in the top half, and #7 out of 25 in Kane County, meaning only six facilities nearby perform better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from six in 2024 to just two in 2025. Staffing, however, is a concern with a 2/5 rating, although the turnover rate is excellent at 0%, suggesting staff stability. While there have been no fines, which is a positive sign, recent inspections revealed some significant issues: one resident with dementia and a pressure injury was not properly assessed or treated according to her care plan, and there were concerns around improperly labeled insulin pens, which indicates potential for medication errors. Additionally, another resident's personal care needs, like nail trimming, were not met in a timely manner. Overall, while there are strengths in RN coverage and no fines, families should be aware of the staffing challenges and some care deficiencies.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Illinois
- #94/665
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 63 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Illinois nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 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
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
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
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pressure injury treatment to a resident as ord...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
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
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication orders were transcribed accurately on admission. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
6 deficiencies
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a resident urinary drainage bag below the le...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 dietary supplements were provided for 2 of 15 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure PRN (as needed) psychotropic medications had a stop date for 2 of 5 residents (R16, R33) reviewed for psychotropic medications in the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
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 follow enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3.) R6's face sheet shows she has diagnoses including dementia and a pressure injury to her right heel.
R6's active care plan s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2.) On 8/27/24 at 8:25 AM, during morning medication pass inside the medication on the B wing there were two open and not dated insulin pens inside of it belonging to R8. One insulin pen was identifie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 a resident's medications were administered timely in accorda...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. R36's face sheet showed multiple diagnoses including unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturban...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to serve roasted potatoes suitable for mechanical soft diets and failed follow menu spread sheet for serving vegetables and pulle...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. R4's admission Record showed R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain dumpster area free from debris. This has potential to affect 54 residents that reside in the facility.
The findings i...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
2 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
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 follow its policy when they did not provide a notice of discharge 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
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
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 follow its policy when they did not provide the Bed Hold and re-adm...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 12/13/22 at 1:56 PM, V8 (RN) entered R9's room, pulled R9's sweatpants down to his knees, and applied a catheter secure. W...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
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 a resident was issued a bed hold prior to a transfer for 1 re...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to identify an area of pressure and have interventions in...
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, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide catheter care in a manner to prevent urinary tract infections. The facility also failed to secure a catheter to preven...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 weigh a resident for 3 months. This applies to 1 of 2 (R34) reviewed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an unsupervised medication cart was secure. This applies to 2 of 3 medication carts in the facility.
The findings inclu...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to initiate timely treatment of a pressure injury and failed to provide treatments as ordered for the healing of a pressure injury...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
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
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to follow physician orders for pain management and assessment. This ...
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
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
- • 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Alden Courts Of Waterford's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Illinois, 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 Alden Courts Of Waterford Staffed?
CMS rates ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Alden Courts Of Waterford?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD during 2022 to 2025. These included: 22 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Alden Courts Of Waterford?
ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD 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 THE ALDEN NETWORK, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 56 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in AURORA, Illinois.
How Does Alden Courts Of Waterford Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5 and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Alden Courts Of Waterford?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Alden Courts Of Waterford Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD 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 Illinois. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Alden Courts Of Waterford Stick Around?
ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Alden Courts Of Waterford Ever Fined?
ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD 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 Alden Courts Of Waterford on Any Federal Watch List?
ALDEN COURTS OF WATERFORD 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.