LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average, but not without its issues. It ranks #54 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, placing it in the top half, and #16 out of 201 in Cook County, which means there are only 15 local options that are better. The facility is improving, with the number of reported issues decreasing from 11 to 9 over the past year. Staffing is a relative strength, as they have an 8% turnover rate, well below the state average, but their staffing rating of 2 out of 5 stars suggests there may still be challenges in this area. However, they have been fined $13,729, which is average, and they provide more RN coverage than 85% of other facilities in Illinois, ensuring better oversight of resident care. On the downside, there are serious concerns regarding resident safety and care. For example, one resident experienced emotional trauma after being inappropriately touched by another resident, violating their right to be free from abuse. Another incident involved a resident with a wound that was not properly cared for, leading to embarrassment and foul odor, while a third resident suffered severe tooth pain without timely pain management. These incidents highlight the need for improvements in both care and safety protocols.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Illinois
- #54/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 8% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 40 points below Illinois's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $13,729 in fines. Lower than most Illinois facilities. Relatively clean record.
- 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
- 30 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (8%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (8%)
40 points below Illinois average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record
May 2025
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 ensure that the code status for one resident (R73) was added to h...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0605
(Tag F0605)
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 obtain consent for the use of a psychotropic medication according...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (R73's) wound treatment orders were enter...
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** R38's admission diagnoses include but not limited to adult failure to thrive, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,...
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to label and date opened multi-dose insulin Kwik pens for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure equipment used to puree food items was air dried prior to use in an effort to prevent food contamination. This failure...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the outside dumpster's lid was closed in an effort to prevent pest migration. This failure has the potential to affect...
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 ensure staff don appropriate Personal Protective Equip...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide at least 80 square feet per resident in 6 multiple occupancy resident bedrooms. This affected 17 (R1, R2, R5, R15, R2...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 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
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 interview and record review, facility failed to protect a resident from physical abuse. This failure affected one resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 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
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 follow the plan of care to provide mechanically altere...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to determine self-administration of medication was appropriate for 1 (R22) out of 12 residents reviewed for medication administra...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a timely person-centered care plan until after...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 that smoking assessment/evaluation were completed on a quart...
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** 3.) R66 clinical record indicates in part, R66 was admitted on [DATE] with the medical diagnosis of hemiplegia affecting left si...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly discard multi dose insulin vial after 28 day...
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 prepare and serve mechanical soft food at the appropriate texture. This failure affected 8 (R8, R12, R16, R36, R42, R44, R58, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
On 4/3/24 at 10:15 AM, during the Resident Council Meeting interview, one of the concerns brought up by the group was the lack of evening snacks provided on a consistent basis and the evening snacks n...
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, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to a.) ensure refrigerated food items were dated with a use by date, b.) discard expired and/or rotten foods, c.) follow manu...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide the required square footage of 80 square f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
3 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 protect the resident's right to be free from sexual abuse by anothe...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and review of records, facility failed to follow their policy to report allegation of abuse within required ...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and review of records, facility failed to follow their policy of completing quarterly fall ri...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
7 deficiencies
2 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a working wound vacuum and failed to assess one resident's (R85) wound. These failures affected one resident (R85) cau...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to assess and rate pain for one resident (R73) that was experiencing a tooth ache and failed to administer pain medication as ord...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. R73's admission record includes but not limited to diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, atherosclerotic heart disease, chro...
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 label and date oxygen equipment (oxygen tubing) per the facility policy. This failure affected one resident (R14) reviewed for...
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, interview, and record review the facility staff failed to complete the controlled drug count sheet which is utilized to complete a shift-to-shift count for controlled substances....
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 that residents' food items in the facility kitchen are properly labeled, dated when received and when opened, and a foo...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide the required square footage of 80 square f...
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
- • 8% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 40 points below Illinois's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 30 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $13,729 in fines. Above average for Illinois. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr Staffed?
CMS rates LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 8%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr?
State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm, 24 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 Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr?
LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR 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 LEGACY HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 90 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CHICAGO, Illinois.
How Does Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (8%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr?
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 Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR 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 5-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 Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr Stick Around?
Staff at LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 8%, the facility is 38 percentage points below the Illinois average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 13%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr Ever Fined?
LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR has been fined $13,729 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Illinois average of $33,216. 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 Lakefront Nursing & Rehab Ctr on Any Federal Watch List?
LAKEFRONT NURSING & REHAB CTR 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.