ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON

2520 GROSS POINT ROAD, EVANSTON, IL 60201 (847) 328-6000
For profit - Corporation 99 Beds THE ALDEN NETWORK Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#3 of 665 in IL
Last Inspection: February 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Alden Estates of Evanston has an excellent Trust Grade of A, indicating it is highly recommended and performing well overall. It ranks #3 out of 665 facilities in Illinois and #2 out of 201 in Cook County, placing it in the top tier of options available. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 6 in 2024 to only 2 in 2025. Staffing is a weakness, receiving a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars, but it has an impressive 0% turnover rate, meaning staff tends to stay long-term. While there have been no fines, the facility has had some concerns, such as not properly labeling and dating food in the refrigerator, which poses a risk for the residents.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Illinois
#3/665
Top 1%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
6 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 54 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Illinois. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 6 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Chain: THE ALDEN NETWORK

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

Feb 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
Jan 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to place call light within resident reach. This deficiency affects one (R158) of three residents in the sample of 17 reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to place call light within resident reach. This deficiency affects one (R158) of three residents in the sample of 17 reviewed for accommodation of needs. Findings include: On 1/17/24 at 12:44PM, Observed R158 sitting in the wheelchair in her room on the left side of the bed closer to the door. She appears pale and weak. She said that she does not feel well, she feels dizzy. She said that she has been waiting for the CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant) to transfer her back to bed. Observed call light away from her and out of her reach. Call light is located on the right side of the bed. Surveyor went to the nursing station and asked for R158's CNA. They said that the assigned CNA went down for lunch break. V10 (Unit Manager /CNA) offered assistance to the surveyor. Both went to R158's room. Surveyor showed the observation of R158's call light not within reach. V10 said that call light should be always within resident's reach. On 1/17/24 at 12:59PM, Informed V2 (Director of Nursing) of the above observation. V2 said that call light should be within resident reach. Facility's policy on use of call light 9/20 indicates: Purpose: To respond promptly to resident's call or assistance. Procedure: 7. Be sure call lights are placed within resident reach at all times.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

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 a resident receives the necessary amount of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident receives the necessary amount of assistant during a meal. This deficiency affects one (R26) of three residents in the sample of 17 reviewed for Providing Resident's meal. Findings include: On 1/17/24 at 12:47PM, Observed V11 (Activity Aide) went inside the R26's room knocking and placed the lunch tray on the bedside tray table on the right side of the bed and left. R26 is lying in bed. Before V11 left the room, surveyor informed him of observation made. V11 said that he left the lunch tray on the bedside table because R26 is sleeping, and he did not want to wake her up. R26 heard the conversation and said, I'm not sleeping, I'm just lying in bed. V10 (Unit Manager) came and was informed of the observation made. V10 explained to surveyor that when staff provide a lunch tray to the resident, staff should provide assistance as needed and set up the lunch tray for the resident. V10 asked R26 if she needs assistance in her lunch tray. R26 said Yes, that would be great, instead of just leaving the tray. On 1/17/24 at 12:57PM, Informed V2 (Director of Nursing) of the above observation. V2 said staff should inform the resident when the meal tray is brought to their room and ask if they need assistance. R26 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis listed in part but not limited to muscle weakness, need for assistance with personal care, morbid obesity. Care plan indicates she has ADL (Activity of daily Living) functional performance deficit related to weakness, deconditioned due to recent hospitalization. Intervention: Assist with ADL task. Provide needed level of assistance and support to complete ADL. admission MDS (Minimum Date Set) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Section GG 130 Self Care -5 Set up or clean up assistance. Facility's policy on Meal service indicates: Purpose: 4. To assure that each resident receives the amount of assistance necessary. Procedure: 1. Assist resident to comfortable position. Note: To encourage social interaction and mobility, all residents should be encouraged to eat meals in the dining room per facility policy. 2. Ensure accuracy of diet served to each resident. 3. Served tray to resident with food covered, remove cover(s) from food 4. Identify resident to ensure correct diet is being served. 5. Place all utensils and food containers within easy reach of resident, assist as necessary. 6. Cover or assist resident to cover clothing with napkin, or clothing protector as desired. 7. Allow the resident to enjoy his/her meal after you are sure you have provided adequate assistance
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 follow manufacturer recommendation in using a low air l...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to follow manufacturer recommendation in using a low air loss mattress to resident with multiple pressure ulcers and arterial wound. This deficiency affects one (R42) of three residents in the sample of 17 reviewed for Pressure ulcer prevention and treatment management. Findings include: On 1/18/24 at 11:09AM, Observed V10 (Unit Manager/Certified Nursing Assistant) and V13 (Wound Care Nurse) preparing R42 for wound care. R42 is on LAL (low air loss mattress) with a thick towel and flat sheet underneath him. R42 wears disposable brief. Informed observation to both V10 and V13. Both said that a resident on LAL mattress should only have flat sheet over it. There should be no multiple layers of linen over the mattress. On 1/18/24 at 1:30PM, Informed V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) of the above observation. V2 said that a resident on LAL mattress should only have a flat sheet over the mattress. No multiple layers of linen as the manufacturer's recommendation. On 1/18/24 at 2:00PM, V2 (DON) and V16 (Nurse Consultant) said that they don't have policy for using LAL mattress. R42 was initially admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis listed in part but not limited to Stage 3 Pressure ulcer of left heel, Peripheral vascular disease. Active physician orders indicate: Evidenced based practice for chronic wound. Cleanse right heel with normal saline, apply Betadine solution 10% topically every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and as needed for arterial non pressure ulcer. Cleanse left heel with ½ strength (name brand) solution, apply Silvadene, Calcium Alginate and cover with foam dressing to left heel every day shift and as needed. Cleanse with solution, pat dry, apply (name brand ointment) and hydrocolloid dressing to sacral to perineum every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and as needed. Apply (name brand cream) as needed for contamination. Care plan indicates: Actual alteration in skin integrity related to Left heel pressure ulcer, sacral pressure ulcer, Perineum MASD (Moisture Associated Skin Disorder), right heel arterial non pressure ulcer. Is high risk for alteration in skin integrity related to limited mobility, use of anti-coagulants, incontinence. Intervention: Pressure reduction foam mattress or pressure redistribution support (low air or alteration air) in bed. R42's wound report dated 1/12/24 indicated 1. Left heel- Stage 3 pressure ulcer. Date reported 12/29/23. Measurement-3x3.5x01cm. 30% granulation, 50% necrotic/eschar, 20% slough. Moderate serosanguineous. Subcutaneous tissue exposed. Treatment: Cleanse with ½ (name brand solution), apply Silvadene, calcium alginate and cover with foam dressing. 2. Perineum- Diaper dermatitis MASD, Superficial mycosis. Dare reported 12/29/23. 100% less erythema and scales. Undefined margins. Denuded peri wound. Treatment: Cleanse with normal saline twice a day and as needed. Apply Mycolog II. 3. Sacral extends to perineum- Stage 3 pressure ulcer. Date reported 12/29/23. Measurement- 8x7x0.1cm. 40% patchy granulation, 30% necrotic/eschar, 10% slough, 20% epithelization. Undefined margins. Denuded peri wound. Light serosanguineous exudate. Treatment: Cleanse with (solution). Apply (name brand ointment) cover with hydrocolloid dressing. (name brand cream) 0.75% as needed for contamination. 4. Right heel - non pressure arterial. Date reported 12/29/23. Measurement-3x6x0cm. 100% maroon. Dry peri wound. Treatment: Cleanse with normal saline. Apply betadine paint and cover with foam dressing. Facility unable to provide policy in using Low air loss mattress.
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 ensure a resident received the correct oxygen flow as ordered for 1 of 2 residents (R14) reviewed for respiratory care in a sam...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received the correct oxygen flow as ordered for 1 of 2 residents (R14) reviewed for respiratory care in a sample of 17. Findings include: On 1/17/2024 at 12:05 PM R14 was observed in bed with oxygen via nasal canula set at 5 liters. On 1/17/2024 at 12:07 PM V12 (Registered Nurse) observed with surveyor R14's oxygen infusing at 5 liters. V12 said oxygen should on 2-3 liters. On 1/28/2024 at 11:20 AM V2 (Director of Nursing) said that if resident is using oxygen, it should be in place all the time if continuous and nurse to follow physician's order as far as oxygen setting. A Transfer and Discharge Report indicated R14 has a diagnosis of Dependence on Supplemental Oxygen and Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia. An Order Summary Report indicates R14 has a Physician order dated 11/10/2023 for Respiratory: Oxygen per nasal cannula at 2 liters per minute continuous every shift. A Care Plan dated 11/10/2023 with an intervention of Administer oxygen per Medical Doctor -MD orders. Facility Policy: Oxygen Therapy Devices - Nasal Cannula 09/2020 Policy: Oxygen delivered per nasal cannula, will be used to prevent or reverse hypoxia and improve tissue oxygenation. Procedure: 1.Verify physician's order.
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** On 1/17/24 at 12:47PM, Observed V11 (Activity Aide) went inside the R26's room which is contact isolation without donning gloves...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 1/17/24 at 12:47PM, Observed V11 (Activity Aide) went inside the R26's room which is contact isolation without donning gloves to serve lunch tray. V11 is wearing surgical mask and gown. Informed V11 of observation made that he did not put gloves when entering contact isolation room. V11 said that he there is no gloves available. V10 (Unit Manager) came and was informed of the above observation made. V10 said that V11 does not need to wear gloves because he will only bring the lunch tray and will not provide direct care. Showed to both V10 and V11 the signage posted at the door entrance indicating of contact isolation requiring hand hygiene, donning mask, gloves, and gown prior entering the room. On 1/17/24 at 12:57PM, Informed V2 (Director of Nursing/Infection Control Coordinator) of the above observation. V2 said that mask, gown, and gloves should be donned prior to entering the contact isolation room. R26 is admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis listed in part but not limited to MRSA (Methicillin- Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) of the wound. Active physician order indicates: Contact isolation precaution due to MRSA of the wound. Care plan indicates: She is on antibiotic therapy with isolation contact precaution due to MRSA of the wound. Intervention: Monitor isolation set up and replenish supplies as needed. Facility's policy on Infection Prevention and Control Manual Transmission-Based Precautions indicates: Contact Precautions policy: The purpose of contact precaution is to prevent transmission of infections that are by direct (e.g., person to person) or indirect contact with the resident or environment. Procedures: 2. All individuals entering the resident's room must use PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) appropriately, including gloves and a gown. Donning PPE upon room entry and doffing before exiting the resident's room is done to contain pathogens. Facility's contact precaution sign adopted from CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates: Contact precautions everyone must: Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and staff must also: * Put on gloves before room entry. Discard gloves before room exit. *Put on gown before room entry. Discard gown before room exit. Do not wear the same gown and gloves for the care of more than one person. *Use dedicated or disposable equipment. Clean and disinfect reusable equipment before use on another person. Based on observation, interview, and record the facility staff failed to wear the required PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and failed to clean the PPE for 2 residents (R26 and R45) of 5 residents reviewed for transmission-based precautions in a sample of 17 residents. Findings include: On 1/17/24 at 12:38 PM V11 (Activity Aide) exited the room of R45. V11 removed the reusable face shield and placed it on the PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) cart. V11 did not clean the reusable face shield. R45 has a positive Covid 19 test result. There are postings indicating contact and droplet precautions for R45. On 1/17/24 at 1:00 PM V2 (Director of Nursing) said that staff are to clean the reusable face shields with the surface wipes after each use before returning them to the cart. On 1/17/24 at 1:10 PM V19 (Maintenance) entered the room of R45 wearing a facemask. V19 was not wearing an N95 mask, face shield, gown, or gloves. V19 said I'm just going to check the ceiling and went into the resident's bathroom. There were signs on R45's door indicating contact and droplet precautions with illustrations of PPE required to enter the room. On 1/19/24 at 10:00 AM V2 (Director of Nursing) said any staff that enter a room with contact and droplet and precautions ordered should wear mask, eye protection, gown, and gloves when entering the room. If the resident is positive for Covid 19 an N95 mask is required. The Order Report Summary for R45 indicates resident in single room isolation for active infection or suspected infection with symptoms, receiving all care within room. Policy: Infection Prevention and Control Manual Transmission-Based Precautions Revised 12/14/2023 Contact Precautions Procedure: 2. All individuals entering the resident's room must use PPE appropriately, including gloves and a gown. Donning PPE upon room entry and doffing before exiting the resident's room is done to contain pathogens. Do not wear the same gown and gloves for more than one person.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to label and date food placed in one of three resident unit refrigerator. This deficiency has the potential to affect 25 residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to label and date food placed in one of three resident unit refrigerator. This deficiency has the potential to affect 25 residents receiving a general diet. Findings include: On 1/17/24 at 1:31PM, Checked refrigerator in the 3rd floor dining room pantry with V8 (Dietary Aide/DA). Observed sliced turkey pale and dry, placed in small plate not completely covered, not labeled, and not dated; three (3) small plates of fruits not labeled and not dated. V8 said that all food inside the refrigerator should be covered, labeled, and dated. On 1/17/24 at 2:00PM, Informed V4 (Dietary manager) of the above observation. V4 said that food inside the refrigerator should be covered, labeled, and dated. Facility's policy on Labeling and dating indicates: Purpose: To reduce the risk of food borne illness. Procedure: 1. Ready to eat time/temperature for safety (TCS) food that is held for less than 24 hours may be labeled with the common name, date, and time it is placed in the refrigerator.
Nov 2023 1 deficiency
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0575 (Tag F0575)

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 post, in a form and manner accessible and understandab...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to post, in a form and manner accessible and understandable to residents, resident representatives including a list of names, addresses (mailing and email), and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups including [NAME] Consent Decree program initiatives. This failure has the potential to affect all 60 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: On 11/3/23 at 9:45 AM, V1 (Administrator) informed surveyor of the current facility census which totaled 60 residents. On 11/3/23 at 10:30 AM, Z1 (Program Director for [NAME] Consent Decree Transition Program) stated, I have tried multiple times to call, email, and fax both the Administrator (V1) and Social Service Director (V6) at the facility and in every instance I would get a voicemail and/or I would leave a message directly with the receptionist and would never get a call back from either the administrator or social service director. I tried on June 6th, 7th, 9th, 27th; July 7th; August 3, and 20th. On 10/20 after my visit to the facility I finally obtained the information that we required. Having to wait almost 4 months is unacceptable. The last time, I had to pay the facility a visit and when I was there, both the administrator and social worker were not available to meet with me. I was informed that both were in meetings, and so I left the information that I needed and that is why I reached out to your department to get the facility to send this information once and for all. Observations conducted on 11/3/23 showed no [NAME] Decree information that was posted in any common areas where residents could view information. On 11/3/23 at 12:30 PM, V1 (Administrator) stated that V6 (Social Service Director) no longer was employed with the facility and that V6's last day was in the last week of October and a new social service director was expected to start on Monday 11/6/23. Asked if he received any calls, emails, or faxes from the program director for the [NAME] Program. V1 stated, Yes I did all the way back in June. Asked if waiting close to 4 months to follow through with the request for information was too long. V1 indicated that he did but did not intend to take the amount of time that it should have taken. On 11/3/23 at 12:40 PM, surveyor and V1 (Administrator) walked on the first-floor common area near the elevators where various framed resident information could be viewed. Surveyor asked if there is any posting he can see, or a resident could see pertaining to [NAME] Consent decree. V1 stated, No I do not have any posted [NAME] Decree anywhere here, but I will check and see where I can obtain that. V1 returned several minutes later and showed surveyor a small placard with small writing showing the [NAME] Decree in the front lobby for visitors to see when signing in. Surveyor asked if residents came to the front lobby where the receptionist sat. V1 stated, Mostly visitors and when we have tours but not the residents themselves. I will go ahead and post this information in the other areas now, so it is visible to residents. V1 showed surveyor records of an email dated 9/18/23 from the Program Director of the [NAME] Transition Program requesting for information. Another record provided to surveyor showed the facility sent a fax to said director on 10/19/23.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Illinois.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Alden Estates Of Evanston's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON 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 Alden Estates Of Evanston Staffed?

CMS rates ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Alden Estates Of Evanston?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON during 2023 to 2025. These included: 8 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Alden Estates Of Evanston?

ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON 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 THE ALDEN NETWORK, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 64 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in EVANSTON, Illinois.

How Does Alden Estates Of Evanston Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.5 and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Alden Estates Of Evanston?

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 Alden Estates Of Evanston Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON 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 Alden Estates Of Evanston Stick Around?

ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Alden Estates Of Evanston Ever Fined?

ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON 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 Alden Estates Of Evanston on Any Federal Watch List?

ALDEN ESTATES OF EVANSTON 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.