LUTHER OAKS
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Luther Oaks has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below average performance with some concerning issues. With a state rank of #163 out of 665, they are in the top half of Illinois facilities, and they rank #1 out of 7 in McLean County, meaning they are the best option locally. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, as the number of issues has increased from 9 in 2023 to 15 in 2024. Staffing is rated at 4 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is concerning at 70%, significantly higher than the state average of 46%. While there have been no fines, which is a positive sign, serious incidents include a resident falling and sustaining a head injury when left unsupervised and another developing a pressure ulcer due to a lack of proper assessments and nutritional support. Overall, families should weigh these strengths against the notable weaknesses when considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Illinois
- #163/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 70% turnover. Very high, 22 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 89 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
- 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
24pts above Illinois avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
22 points above Illinois average of 48%
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 protect the resident's right to be free from physical a...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 interview and record review the facility failed to complete a level two Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) after a mental health diagnosis was added to R6's electronic medic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to assess and track behaviors before giving a diagnosis of Schizophrenia for the administration of antipsychotic medications for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide an individual discharge plan for R18 who was discharged on 7/26/24 to Independent Living . R18 is one of one resident reviewed for d...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide shaving care for two residents (R12, R13) dependent on staff assistance of 16 residents reviewed for shaving care from ...
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, interview and record review the facility failed to provide hygienic oxygen masks and tubing and failed to label and contain the oxygen masks and tubing for two (R13, R7) of two r...
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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to identify behaviors and implement non-pharmacological interventions prior to the use of psychotropic medications for one (R6) o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
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 honor resident food preferences for one of one resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to have an antibiotic stewardship program in place for two (R9, R12) of six residents reviewed for antibiotic stewardship on the total sample o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to employ a clinically qualified Director of Food and Nutrition. This failure has the potential to affect all 16 residents residi...
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to store dishes in a sanitary manner, clean food preparation areas with appropriate chemicals, ensure staff's hair was secure to p...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to have an infection control surveillance program in place...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide a safe transfer for one (R1) of three residents reviewed for falls on the sample list of five.
Findings include:
R1's care plan da...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision for a dependent resid...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify physician and resident representative of a change in medical condition for one of four residents (R4) reviewed for notification of c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to administer Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV) 13, PCV 15, PCV 20 and/or Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine (PPSV) 23 to four (R1, R3, R4,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
8 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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · 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 a resident did not develop a pressure ulcer, fa...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to complete thorough post fall investigations for two residents (R1, R...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify resident representatives of a significant weight loss for two of three residents (R2, R3) reviewed for notification of change of con...
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
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure grievances regarding food service were documented, that dietary was notified of the concerns or that the grievances were investigate...
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 F0659
(Tag F0659)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement physician's orders for one of three residents (R1) reviewed for falls and skin concerns on the sample of six.
Findings include:
...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete ordered lab work for two of three residents (R1, R3) reviewed for laboratory testing on the sample list of six.
Findings Include: ...
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 F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a therapeutic diet and nutritional supplements as ordered to ensure resident weights were maintained for two of three ...
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
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon grievances/concerns received during resident council meetings for three months regarding food/dietary. These failures have the pot...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2022
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to transmit Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days of the completion date for two of two residents (R14, R19 ) reviewed fo...
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 prevent the formation of a Stage II Pressure Ulcer cau...
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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store and label premade salads and gelatin in a manner to prevent contamination. This failure had the potential to affect all ...
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 fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 27 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 70% turnover. Very high, 22 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
About This Facility
What is Luther Oaks's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LUTHER OAKS 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 Luther Oaks Staffed?
CMS rates LUTHER OAKS's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 70%, which is 24 percentage points above the Illinois average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Luther Oaks?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at LUTHER OAKS during 2022 to 2024. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 24 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Luther Oaks?
LUTHER OAKS is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 19 certified beds and approximately 15 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BLOOMINGTON, Illinois.
How Does Luther Oaks Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, LUTHER OAKS's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (70%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Luther Oaks?
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 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 facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Luther Oaks Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LUTHER OAKS 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 Luther Oaks Stick Around?
Staff turnover at LUTHER OAKS is high. At 70%, the facility is 24 percentage points above the Illinois 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 Luther Oaks Ever Fined?
LUTHER OAKS 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 Luther Oaks on Any Federal Watch List?
LUTHER OAKS 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.