HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Hallmark HC of Carlinville has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about care quality and safety. Ranking #538 out of 665 facilities in Illinois places it in the bottom half, while being #4 of 6 in Macoupin County suggests only one local option is better. The facility's trend is stable, maintaining 9 issues over the last two years, which indicates ongoing problems rather than improvement. Staffing is a concern, with a low 1-star rating and a 55% turnover rate, which is close to the state average but still suggests instability among staff. Additionally, the facility has accumulated $39,220 in fines, which is average but indicates potential compliance issues. Specific incidents highlight serious deficiencies; for example, one resident did not receive pain medication for nine hours, resulting in undue suffering, and another resident developed a wound due to a failure to monitor and treat properly. While the facility has some average quality measures, the lack of proper RN coverage-less than 78% of other Illinois facilities-raises further concerns about the ability to provide adequate care. Overall, families should weigh these significant weaknesses against any potential strengths when considering this nursing home for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Illinois
- #538/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $39,220 in fines. Lower than most Illinois facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Illinois. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 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
Below Illinois average (2.5)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
7 points above Illinois average of 48%
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. This has ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
8 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide pain relief for 1 of 1 resident (R34) reviewed for pain in the sample of 43. This failure resulted in R34 not having ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide pain medication for 1 of 1 resident (R34) reviewed for pain in the sample of 43. This failure resulted in R34 not hav...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 provide residents with a written explanation as to why they are bei...
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 interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide the prescribed pressure ulcer treatment for 1...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to clean soiled surfaces for 2 of 8 residents (R21,R31) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility to dispose of expired stock medications used by all residents. ...
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 interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to store food at the needed temperature and discard expired food to prevent food borne illness. This failure has the potential t...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · 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 provide 80 square feet of floor space per resident in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
9 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 identify, monitor, and treat a wound for 1 of 4 (R9) ...
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** 2. R13's MDS, dated [DATE], documented her cognition was severely impaired and that she was frequently incontinent of urine and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 provide privacy and dignity for 4 of 9 (R4, R18, R31,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the building in good repair for 11 of 13 (R2, R6, R10, R14, R19, R19, R26, R29, R31, R33, R36, and R37) of 13 reside...
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** 3. R14's face sheet, dated 1/18/24, documented R14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to employ a Registered Nurse (RN) in the role of full time Director of Nursing (DON), and to provide consecutive 8 hour Register...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly store medication, and label tuberculin and insulin vials. This has the potential to affect all 43 residents living i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the Facility failed to ensure the minimum required staff were present at the Monthly Quality Assurance Meetings. The failure has the potential to affect all 43 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · 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 provide 80 square feet of floor space per resident in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician for a neurological change in condition for one...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene and maintain adequate infection control practices to prevent cross contamination for 2 of 41 residents (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate tracking for antibiotic stewardship surveillance to monitor for patterns and trends in infections and antibiotic use for 4...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse working 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. This failure has the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
Findi...
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 ensure there was an air gap in the ice machine between the ice storage bin and floor sewage drain in the kitchen to prevent c...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · 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 provide 80 square feet of floor space per resident in...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s), $39,220 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 24 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $39,220 in fines. Higher than 94% of Illinois facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (15/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Illinois, 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 Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville Staffed?
CMS rates HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, which is 9 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 Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm, 18 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville?
HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility is operated by CREST HEALTHCARE CONSULTING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 49 certified beds and approximately 40 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CARLINVILLE, Illinois.
How Does Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville Stick Around?
Staff turnover at HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE is high. At 55%, the facility is 9 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 Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville Ever Fined?
HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE has been fined $39,220 across 1 penalty action. The Illinois average is $33,471. 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 Hallmark Hc Of Carlinville on Any Federal Watch List?
HALLMARK HC OF CARLINVILLE 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.