ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Admiral at the Lake in Chicago has a Trust Grade of D, which means it is below average and has some notable concerns. It ranks #303 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, placing it in the top half, and #94 out of 201 in Cook County, indicating that there are better local options available. The facility is improving, with the number of reported issues decreasing from 10 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a turnover rate of 35%, which is lower than the state average of 46%, but the staffing rating is only 1 out of 5 stars, indicating challenges in this area. While there are no fines recorded, a serious incident occurred where a resident with known fall risks fell and sustained multiple fractures due to a failure to conduct proper assessments and interventions. Additionally, the facility has concerns related to food safety, including improper storage and temperature control, which could affect all residents. Overall, while there are some positive aspects, families should be aware of the facility's weaknesses and consider these when making their decision.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Illinois
- #303/665
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 35% turnover. Near Illinois's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Illinois. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
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 Illinois average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Illinois average (2.5)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
11pts below Illinois avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
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 interview, and record review facility failed to perform accurate fall risk assessment for a resident with a known fall ...
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 F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 review and revise the comprehensive resident-centered care plan ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
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 have a person-centered care plan that is consistent with the residen...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their restorative care policy and provide resto...
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, interview, and record review the facility failed to accurately secure controlled substance medications for two residents (R7 and R14) in a sample of 12 reviewed for medication/co...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a safe, hazard free environment for 15 residents residing on the eighth floor of the 29 residing in the facility.
Findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow their policies and implement safe food preparation and services to ensure the food conserves a safe temperature. This f...
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 food items in accordance with professional standards for food service safety and follow proper sanitation and ...
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, interview, and record review the facility failed to observe proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) protocols. This failure has the potential to affect all residents residing ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
10 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** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the residents were treated with respect and dign...
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** 2. On 2/6/24 at 10:45 AM, surveyor observed R29 lying on R29's back on an air loss mattress with a spread sheet, pad, and a diap...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 02/06/24 at 12:30 PM, surveyor observed R14 up in chair, Oxygen tubing and Nebulizer treatment mask were not in a plastic bag...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure to ensure medica...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
On 2/6/24 at 12:28 PM R184's lunch plate was observed with mashed potatoes, ground cauliflower and pulled pork that did not appear ground. Observed staff provided Nectar Thick Liquid (lemon water).
R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0813
(Tag F0813)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to follow facility policy for personal refrigerators by not keeping a temperature log to ensure refrigerator is at proper temperat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 2/6/24 at 12:28 PM, R184's lunch plate was observed with a scoop of mashed potatoes, ground cauliflower and pulled pork that ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to establish an antibiotic stewardship program that includes a protoc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide eligible residents and/or resident representatives educatio...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to a.) ensure kitchen staff wore beard covering in th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
6 deficiencies
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 ensure that a resident who depended on staff's assistance with ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care received assistance with...
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 ensure that the low air loss (LAL mattress was not la...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
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 assess a resident for the ability to safely self-admi...
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 follow their policy of monitoring the temperature of the refrigerator used for storing vaccine twice daily and failed to ensu...
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** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to display the proper isolation signage for a COVID-19 p...
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 discard food products before expiration date; failed to perform proper hand washing and use of gloves during kitchen tasks and...
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
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
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 call lights were within reach for one of three ...
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 fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
- • 35% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 26 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Admiral At The Lake, The's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Admiral At The Lake, The Staffed?
CMS rates ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Admiral At The Lake, The?
State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 25 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Admiral At The Lake, The?
ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE 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 36 certified beds and approximately 26 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CHICAGO, Illinois.
How Does Admiral At The Lake, The Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Admiral At The Lake, The?
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 Admiral At The Lake, The Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE 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 2-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 Admiral At The Lake, The Stick Around?
ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE has a staff turnover rate of 35%, which is about average for Illinois 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 Admiral At The Lake, The Ever Fined?
ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE 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 Admiral At The Lake, The on Any Federal Watch List?
ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, THE 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.