LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Little Sisters of the Poor in Chicago has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #55 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, placing it in the top half, and #17 out of 201 in Cook County, meaning only a few local options are better. However, the facility's performance is worsening, with issues increasing from 4 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a strength with a perfect rating of 5/5 stars and a turnover rate of 40%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting that staff are familiar with the residents. On the downside, the facility has incurred $14,015 in fines, which is average but still raises concerns about compliance, and there have been serious incidents, such as a resident suffering an injury during a transfer and failures in food safety practices that could potentially affect all residents.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Illinois
- #55/665
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% turnover. Near Illinois's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $14,015 in fines. Higher than 95% of Illinois facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 52 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Illinois. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (40%)
8 points below Illinois average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
May 2025
1 deficiency
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 the facility failed to properly transfer a resident (R1) using a mechanical lift during bed...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
7 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to clearly document the code status for one (R35) of 5 residents revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of records and interview the facility failed to follow resident assessment instrument (RAI) related to discharge...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 refer four (R1, R23, R30, R35) out of twelve residents with newly e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 adhere to nursing standards of practice by preparing/p...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were not available to admin...
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 have an appropriate policy and procedure to ensure residents are of...
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 follow proper sanitation and food storage practices as evidenced by a.) food not properly labeled, b.) food not properly stor...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
4 deficiencies
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 date oxygen tubing per resident's physician order. This failure affected one resident (R24) reviewed for oxygen equipment, in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication administration error rate of <5% for 2 (R16 and R31) residents of 6 residents reviewed for medicati...
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
2.) R7's diagnosis includes but are not limited to type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified, u...
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 items that were beyond their use by dates. This failure has the potential to affect all 42 residents that receive ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
9 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its abuse policy by not providing necessary care inservices, resulting in a female resident physically assaulting another male resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, failed to follow their Abuse policy by failing to report to Illinois Department of Public Health an incident between two residents (R3 and R29) in a sample of 4 r...
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** On 1/04/23 at 11:20 AM, R42's electronic health record (EHR) was reviewed. R42's physician order sheet, face sheet, and comprehe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide assistive device to maintain hearing abilities for 1 (R5) of 1 resident who has hearing impairment in a sample of 13 r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate less than 5% for 3 of 9 residents (R10, R38, R18) in the sample reviewed. There were 25 opportun...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE] at 11:20 AM, R42's electronic health record (EHR) was reviewed. Review of R42's physician order sheet, face sheet, and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
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 a.) ensure staff obtained a physician order for the code status for ...
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 (a) properly discard multi-dose inhaler 30 days of opening for 1 resident (R27); and (b) properly store medications in the ref...
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 follow their policy on food storage to ensure food items in the coolers were discarded within the recommended dates after the...
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
- • 40% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $14,015 in fines. Above average for Illinois. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Little Sisters Of The Poor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR 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 Little Sisters Of The Poor Staffed?
CMS rates LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Little Sisters Of The Poor?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 20 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Little Sisters Of The Poor?
LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR 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 76 certified beds and approximately 45 residents (about 59% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CHICAGO, Illinois.
How Does Little Sisters Of The Poor Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Little Sisters Of The Poor?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Little Sisters Of The Poor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR 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 Little Sisters Of The Poor Stick Around?
LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Little Sisters Of The Poor Ever Fined?
LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR has been fined $14,015 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Illinois average of $33,219. 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 Little Sisters Of The Poor on Any Federal Watch List?
LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR 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.