ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY

1250 WEST CARL SANDBURG DRIVE, GALESBURG, IL 61401 (309) 344-5400
For profit - Corporation 180 Beds ALLURE HEALTHCARE SERVICES Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#7 of 665 in IL
Last Inspection: July 2024

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

Overview

Allure of Lake Storey has earned a Trust Grade of B+, indicating that it is above average and recommended for families seeking a nursing home. It ranks #7 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, placing it in the top half statewide, and #1 out of 6 in Knox County, making it the best local option available. However, the facility's trend is worsening, as the number of issues reported increased from 1 in 2023 to 6 in 2024. Staffing is a concern with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and less RN coverage than 81% of Illinois facilities, which may impact the quality of care. While there have been no fines, which is a positive sign, some specific incidents raised concerns, such as a resident suffering a head injury during a fall and another resident experiencing significant weight loss without a revised care plan to address their needs.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Illinois
#7/665
Top 1%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
38% 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
○ Average
Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Illinois. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2024: 6 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (38%)

    10 points below Illinois average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 38%

Near Illinois avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: ALLURE HEALTHCARE SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jul 2024 4 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

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for significant weight loss for one of three residents (R24) reviewed for weight loss in the sample of 31...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for significant weight loss for one of three residents (R24) reviewed for weight loss in the sample of 31. Findings include: The facility's Comprehensive Care Plan policy, dated 9/18/23, documents It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan will include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's needs as identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. The objectives will be utilized to monitor the resident's progress. Alternative interventions will be documented, as needed. R24's current electronic weight summary documents R24's weight on 1/2/24 was 166 pounds, on 5/21/24 136.5 pounds and on 7/5/24 was 143.0 pounds (13.86%/percent significant weight loss in 6 months). R24's Dietary Progress Notes, dated 6/25/24 and signed by V14 (Dietician), documents R24 is being monitored for significant weight loss at one, three and six months. R24's current Care Plan, dated 6/5/24, does not document a plan of care or interventions implemented for R24's significant weight loss. On 7/18/24 at 11:15 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) confirmed that R24's current Care Plan does not address her significant weight loss. V2 stated, I do not see (R24's) weight loss on the care plan. I would expect it to be put on her plan of care and it's not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise a care plan with a change in transfer status for one of one resident (R49) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise a care plan with a change in transfer status for one of one resident (R49) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living in a sample of 31. Findings include: The Facility's Care plan revisions upon Status Change policy, dated 4/3/23, documents The purpose of this procedure is to provide a consistent process for reviewing and revising the care plan for those residents experiencing a status change. The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed, and revised as necessary, when a resident experiences a status change. Upon identification of change in status, the nurse will notify the MDS (Minimum Data Set) Coordinator, the physician, and the resident representative, if applicable. The MDS Coordinator and the Interdisciplinary Team will discuss the resident condition and collaborate on intervention options. The team meeting discussion will be documented in the nursing progress notes. The care plan will be updated with the new or modified interventions. Staff involved in the care of the resident will report resident response to new or modified interventions. Care plans will be modified as needed by the MDS Coordinator or other designated staff member. The Unit Manager or other designated staff member will communicate care plan interventions to all staff involved in the resident's care. The Unit Manager or other designated staff member will conduct an audit on all residents experiencing a change in status, at the time the change in status is identified, to ensure care plans have been updated to reflect the current resident needs. R49's Physician orders, dated 7/16/24, document an order signed 6/27/24 to be right foot toe touch weight bearing. On 7/15/24 at 9:30 AM, R49 was sitting in manual wheelchair with a mechanical lift sling underneath of him. On 7/16/24 at 11:25 AM, R49 stated he is being transferred with a mechanical lift now because every time he puts weight on his right foot his heel bleeds through the dressing. R49 states, The very first time staff tried to do toe touch weight bearing, I put weight on my heel because I felt I was going to lose my balance. R49 further states, Staff attempted three times and each time I had difficulty. I am able to put weight on my left leg. The last time staff had me standing I was in a special shoe and my wound bled but not as much. The staff and I get scared. So, we stopped trying because we don't want it to bleed. I stood for a bit about a month ago and I felt more stable then, but the staff stopped attempting after because I was scared. R49's care plan, dated 7/16/24, documents R49's transfer status is one person assist with a slide board. R49's care plan has no documentation of a revision of his change in transfer status. On 07/17/24 10:44 AM, V10 (Certified Nursing Assistant) and V9 (Licensed Practical Nurse) transferred R49 with mechanical lift from his bed to his wheelchair. A transfer slide board was sitting on top of a bedside table in R49s room. On 7/17/24 at 9:55 AM, V7 (Director of Rehab) stated on 6/28/24 upon discharge from therapy R49 was one assist with slide board. On 7/17/24 at 10:30 AM, V4 (MDS Coordinator) verified that R49's care plan was not revised following his change in transfer status.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling urinary catheter was cleansed with a cleaning agent indicated for indwelling urinary catheter care for o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling urinary catheter was cleansed with a cleaning agent indicated for indwelling urinary catheter care for one of two residents (R31) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters in the sample of 31. Findings include: The facility's Catheter care policy (revised 02/05/24) documents the following: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents with indwelling catheters receive appropriate catheter care and maintain their dignity and privacy when indwelling catheters are in use. This policy also documents, Male: Using circular motion, cleanse the meatus with a clean cloth moistened with water and perineal cleaner (soap). R31's current medical record documents R1's current diagnoses to include: Malignant Neoplasm of Prostate, Benign Prostate Hyperplasia, Obstructive and Reflux Uropathy, and Urinary Tract Infection. On 07/15/24 at 11:00 AM, R31 was sitting in a wheelchair near his bed watching television. An indwelling urinary catheter bag containing clear yellow urine was hanging on the lower aspect of R31's wheelchair, and R31 stated he has a history of urinary tract infections. On 07/17/24 at 09:35 AM, R31 was lying supine in bed watching television. An indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag containing clear, yellow urine was secured to the lower aspect of R31's bed. V3 (Registered Nurse) entered R31's room at this time to provide indwelling urinary catheter care. V3 assisted R31 to pull his pants and incontinence brief down, and an indwelling urinary catheter was in place and secured to R31's left leg with a securement device. V3 proceeded to clean R31's indwelling urinary catheter with several wipes obtained from a resealable package of disinfecting wipes. Once care was completed, V3 assisted R31 to pull up his pants and incontinence brief. V3 stated disinfecting wipes are what she utilizes to clean all indwelling urinary catheters. On 07/17/24 at 10:00 AM, V3 provided the package of disinfecting wipes, and the following active ingredients were documented on the packaging: Octyl decyl dimethyl ammonium chloride; Dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride; Didactyl dimethyl ammonium chloride; and Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride. The packaging label also documents the following: Do not use as a baby wipe or for personal cleansing. This is not a baby wipe! V3 then stated, I screwed up, and confirmed she should not have utilized the disinfecting wipes to provide R31's indwelling urinary catheter care. On 07/17/24 at 11:20 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated that V3 should not have used disinfecting wipes to cleanse R31's indwelling urinary catheter.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0808 (Tag F0808)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to serve a physician ordered dietary supplement for one of four residents (R50) reviewed for weight loss in the sample of 31. Fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to serve a physician ordered dietary supplement for one of four residents (R50) reviewed for weight loss in the sample of 31. Findings include: The facility's Nutritional and Dietary Supplement policy, dated 4/9/24, documents, It is the policy of this facility that nutritional and dietary supplements will be used to compliment a resident's dietary needs in order to maintain adequate nutritional status and resident's highest practical level of well-being. The facility will provide nutritional and dietary supplements to each resident, consistent with the resident's assessed needs. R50's physician order dated 7/18/24 documents R50 has an order to receive gelato (supplement) twice a day at lunch and dinner dated 3/15/24. R50's dietary note, dated 7/10/24 at 1:57 PM, documents, (R50) discussed with IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) during Nutrition-At-Risk (NAR) meeting related to wound monitoring. R50s dietary note also documents that R50 receives fortified ice cream twice a day. On 7/16/24 at 12:23 PM, R50 was sitting at the dining room table with her lunch. R50's tray did not include the physician ordered gelato supplement. On 7/16/24 at 12:31 PM, V15 (Certified Nursing Assistant) began helping R50 with her meal. R50's meal card that was lying on the table documented that gelato should have been served with R50's lunch. V15 stated that R50 was not served gelato with her lunch meal.
Apr 2024 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

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure safe positioning in bed was maintained during incontinence care and failed to obtain an air mattress and safety devices for one of th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure safe positioning in bed was maintained during incontinence care and failed to obtain an air mattress and safety devices for one of three residents (R4) reviewed for falls in the sample of 12. These failures resulted in R4 falling from bed, hitting head on floor, and obtaining a hematoma to her forehead. Findings include: The facility's Fall Prevention Program, dated 2023, documents, Each resident will be assessed for fall risk and will receive care and services in accordance with their individualized level of risk to minimize the likelihood of falls. A fall is an event in which an individual unintentionally comes to rest on the ground, floor or other level, but not as a result of an overwhelming external force (e.g., resident pushes another resident). The event may be witnessed, reported, or presumed when a resident is found on the floor or ground, and can occur anywhere. The facility's Safe Resident Handling/Transfers policy and procedure, dated 2023, documents, It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents are handled and transferred safely to prevent or minimize risks for injury and provide and promote a safe, secure and comfortable experience for the resident while keeping the employees safe in accordance with current standards and guidelines. The facility's Turning and Repositioning policy and procedure, dated 2023, documents, It is our policy to implement turning and repositioning as part of our systematic approach to pressure injury prevention and management. This policy establishes responsibilities and protocols for turning and repositioning. Turning and repositioning is a primary responsibility of nursing assistants. However, all nursing staff are expected to assist with turning and repositioning. Use the appropriate number of staff to perform the tasks safely. Utilize positioning devices as needed to maintain posture. The facility's Use of Support Surfaces dated 2/1/23, documents, Support surfaces will be used in accordance with evidence-based practice for residents with or at risk for pressure injuries. Support surface refers to a specialized mattress, mattress overlay, or a chair cushion designed to manage pressure, shear, microclimate, or friction forces on tissue. Support surfaces will be chosen by matching the potential therapeutic benefit with the resident's specific situation. Considerations for utilizing specialized support surfaces: a. Medical condition; b. Size and weight; c. Mobility and activity levels. d. Due to unique needs and situations of individuals, the guidelines may not be appropriate for use in all circumstances. The facility's fall log, documents R4 had two un-witnessed falls on 3/10/24 and 3/11/24 and a witnessed fall on 3/25/24. The current Care Plan for R4, documents R4 returned from hospital visit with a terminal prognosis and diagnosis of acute renal failure, hyperkalemia, urosepsis, and protein calorie malnutrition and on hospice services with a stage 3 coccyx pressure ulcer. R4 is at risk for falls related to deconditioning, gait/balance problems, and psychoactive drug use with history of falls at home and prior nursing facility. R4 had falls on 3/10/24, 3/11/24, and 3/25/24. R4 is receiving hospice services, requires total assist of two staff for turning and repositioning at least every two hours in bed and for toileting. R4's Care Plan was revised with fall intervention added on 3/11/24 to include, Notify hospice to bring in air mattress with built in bolsters and on 3/25/24 Notify hospice (company) to exchange (R4's) bed for a large bed with air mattress with bolsters. The #499 Un-witnessed fall investigation for R4, dated 3/10/24 at 9:40 pm, documents R4 noted to be laying on floor next to her bed. Nurse assessed. R4 noted to have abrasion to head and discoloration to arm with complaints of head pain. R4 has impaired balance coordination and weakness with poor safety awareness. Resident has a terminal condition and on hospice services. Nurse initiated neuros (neurological checks) and R4 was assisted back to bed per mechanical lift. (R4's) Care plan was reviewed and revised to add: Bed to be in lowest locked position with fall mats next to bed. Nurse documented, (R4) has poor upper body control, tends to lean towards right side while in bed. Requires constant repositioning. The #501 Un-witnessed fall investigation for R4, dated 3/11/24 at 3:00 pm, documents, Prior fall note exact same incident on 3/10/24. R4 was observed on left side of bed on the floor, lying on her right side, with pillow under face with no injuries. The root cause was documented as poor balance, coordination, weakness, restlessness, and terminal condition. Hospice notified for an air mattress with bolsters. The #505 Witnessed fall investigation for R4, dated 3/25/24 at 10:15 pm, documents V9 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) and V10 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) repositioned R4 from the far right of the bed to the center of the bed, turned R4 to left side, facing V10 CNA and while (V10) CNA had (R4) turned towards him (V10 CNA) and (V10) was wiping (R4's) buttocks, (R4's) upper body slid off of air mattress. R4 complained of face and nose pain and rated pain a 5 out of 10 on pain scale. V9 LPN assessed R4 noting 6.0 cm (centimeter) x 5.0 cm hematoma (abnormal collection of blood outside of blood vessel) to middle of forehead and the tip of R4's nose was potentially crooked. The local hospice to order a bariatric air mattress and V2 DON (Director of Nursing) requesting air mattress with bolsters. Care Plan reviewed and revised to add: Notify hospice (company) to provide a larger bed, air mattress with bolsters. The Post Fall Evaluation for R4, dated 3/26/24 at 2:54 am, documents reason for R4's fall as slipped out of air mattress, needs a bigger bed and injury as hematoma to forehead. Contributing Factors Noted: slippery bed/air mattress. R4 verbalized pain of 4 out of 10 on pain scale with grimacing, withdrawing and shows non-verbal signs of pain. On 4/5/24 at 3:24 pm, V18 LPN/Licensed Practical Nurse stated she was called down to R4's room on 3/10/24 because R4 was on the floor. R4 was found on the floor next to her bed, face down with an abrasion to her forehead. R4 was not able to move her legs but could move her upper body some, could move her arms, had poor control and would lean to the right. R4 had an air mattress, that seemed a bit unleveled, floor mats on the floor, and the bed was kept as low as it would go but was not a low to the floor bed. V18 LPN stated R4 was not morbidly obese but was wide and round and needed a bigger bed and was requested from the hospice company. R4's bed and nightstand were also moved because it looked like (R4) may have hit her head on the nightstand. V18 LPN stated she called and requested the hospice company to come to the facility to see R4 and after coming they just said to monitor R4 and never brought a bigger mattress. On 4/3/24 at 2:45 pm, V5 LPN stated R4 returned from a hospital visit on hospice services due to kidney and cardiac issues and was actively dying prior to her last fall. V5 LPN stated on the morning of 3/26/24, during shift report, V9 LPN reported R4 had fallen out of bed during the night, while cares were being provided, and V5 LPN only recalls seeing bruising to R4's forehead but nothing abnormal to R4's face. V5 LPN stated R4 was restless at times but mostly at nighttime. V5 LPN stated the air mattresses are slick and R4 wore silky nightgowns which probably didn't help. V5 LPN stated R4 had previous falls on 3/10/24 and 3/11/24 and on 3/11/24 V5 LPN requested the hospice company bring a bariatric air mattress and bolsters for R4's bed so there was more room for R4, but they never brought anything. On 4/5/24 at 12:53 pm, V10 CNA/Certified Nursing Assistant stated on 3/25/24 he and V9 LPN went in to clean up R4 and care for R4's coccyx wound treatment. V10 CNA stated R4 had to be moved to the middle of the bed before starting due to R4 leaning to the right side. V10 CNA stated, We rolled R4 towards me, and V9 LPN started cleaning R4 up because R4 had a bowel movement. V10 CNA stated both he and V9 LPN were holding onto R4 and both trying to clean R4 up and R4 just slid off the bed. V10 CNA stated (R4) had an air mattress and had already fallen numerous times before. In my opinion air mattresses are not safe for all residents. V10 CNA stated there were no bolsters on R4's air mattress and (R4) should have had a bigger bed to start with. R4 was actively dying prior to the fall and wasn't able to help, she just rolled right out. V10 CNA stated, I told them on my witness statement that I told V9 LPN that (R4) needed a bigger bed and that I didn't think the air mattress was safe because (R4) had prior falls. V10 CNA stated, The only thing I can think of is that we could have gotten another person to help but we only had to have two before. On 4/5/24 at 4:20 pm, V9 LPN stated she and V10 CNA went in to do (R4's) coccyx wound treatment on 3/25/24 but R4 had a bowel movement and needed cleaned up first. V9 LPN stated R4 had to be moved to the middle of the bed because R4 tended to lean to her right. V9 LPN stated R4 was rolled onto her left side facing V10 CNA. V10 CNA was standing at about R4's pelvis area holding R4 at the hip area with one hand and was wiping R4's buttock with his other hand. V9 LPN stated she was on the back side of R4 and had hand on R4's shoulder or hip area and at times she and V10 CNA were both wiping stool from R4's buttocks at the same time. V9 LPN stated R4's bed was in the up position while they were giving care and R4's head and top half of body just slid right off the bed. V9 LPN stated they tried to stop R4 from falling but couldn't, it happened so fast. V9 LPN stated R4's body fell onto the fall mat but R4's head hit the floor, causing a goose egg on her forehead and her nose did look a little crooked at the tip but I honestly didn't know if it was already like that or not. V9 LPN stated, (R4) has fallen other times because of the air mattress and R4 needed a bigger bed because (R4) was very round and filled the mattress she had. V9 LPN stated the hospice company was asked to bring a bigger mattress and bolsters for R4 but never brought them. V9 LPN stated she did notify the hospice company who told her to just put ice wherever R4 was hurting. V9 LPN stated, A bigger bed or bolsters probably would have helped prevent (R4) from falling. V9 LPN also confirmed that if V10 CNA had just been holding her and not wiping (R4), might have had better control of R4 and prevented R4's fall. On 4/5/24 at 2:23 pm, V2 DON/Director of Nursing stated generally during incontinence care of residents requiring two assist; the staff member the resident is facing holds and secures the residents position while the staff member facing the residents back side does the incontinence care. V2 DON stated it was reported that V9 LPN and V10 CNA were in the room providing cares for R4 and R4 fell out of the bed. V9 LPN and V10 CNA were cleaning R4 up and preparing R4 for the wound treatment. V10 CNA tried to stop R4 but R4 was top heavy and fell to the floor. V2 DON stated the facility had been trying to get a larger air mattress or bolsters from the hospice company for some time. V2 DON stated a bariatric air mattress and bolsters were requested from the hospice company multiple times. V2 DON stated, We went back and forth with (hospice company) and evidently they have requirements based on the resident's condition in order to provide one. V2 DON confirmed not having a larger air mattress or bolsters may have potentially contributed to R4's fall and that V10 CNA should have had both hands on R4 securing R4's position on the bed. On 4/5/24 at 4:27 pm, V1 Administrator stated the facility was having trouble getting a bigger air mattress and bolsters from the hospice company, who said they weren't allowed to deliver one due to their rules and the cuts that were made. V1 Administrator stated she called the facility's corporate office who called the hospice company's corporate office and they finally agreed they would deliver one but would be a week or so. V1 Administrator stated R4 ended up passing before the hospice company delivered anything to the facility. V1 Administrator confirmed that V10 CNA should have had both hands holding onto R4 while V9 LPN performed the incontinence care, and she would make sure the nursing staff was educated.
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 F0602 (Tag F0602)

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 prevent drug diversion of Oxycodone from occurring for one (R1) of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to prevent drug diversion of Oxycodone from occurring for one (R1) of three residents reviewed for narcotic medications in the sample of 12. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy and procedure policy, dated 8/11/22, documents, It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. This policy defines willful as the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. This policy also defines misappropriation of Resident property as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent, use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. The facility's Medication Administration policy and procedure, dated 2024, documents, Sign MAR (medication administration record) after administered and If medication is a controlled substance, sign narcotic book. The Controlled Drug Receipt/Record/Disposition Form, for R1, documents a bubble pack card of 60 Oxycodone-APAP (Tylenol) 5-325 mg (milligrams) tablets was delivered to the facility on 1/25/24. This form documents R1 received Oxycodone two tablets on the following dates: 2/7/24 at 12:00 pm; 2/8/24 at 7:30 am; 2/9/24 at 8:30 pm; 2/20/24 at 8:00 am; and on 2/20/24 at 8:30 pm. All other days R1 received only one tablet with the last dose of one tablet being administered on 2/19/24 at 11:12 am. There is no Oxycodone signed out for R1 between 2/19/24 and 3/5/24. This form documents V4 Former RN/Registered Nurse signed out Oxycodone on the following dates and times: 3/6/24 at 7:05 pm two tablets; 3/6/24 at 11:45 pm one tablet; and 3/7/24 at 5:00 am two tablets. The facility's final report submitted to the state agency on 3/11/24, documents R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has a physician order for Oxycodone-APAP 5-325 mg (milligrams) one to two tablets every four hours as needed for pain. R1 is alert and oriented to person, place, and time. R1 as cognitively intact on 1/22/24. It was noted on 3/8/24 that the narcotic count sheet from 3/6/24 at 7:15 pm to 3/7/24 at 5:00 am 5 tablets were signed out by an agency nurse (V4 Former RN). Resident had not taken this medication since 2/19/24 prior to this shift. The Oxycodone was not signed out on the resident's medication administration records. (R1's) scheduled Tylenol was signed out by (V4 Former RN) with zero reported pain from (R1). (R1) was questioned by the Administrator (V1) and DON/Director of Nursing (V2) and reports she has not taken any Oxycodone for several weeks and that she has had no pain. Physician and Family have been notified of incident. (Local) Police Department was notified of incident and report was taken by V20 Police Officer with complaint #24-8835. (V4 Former RN) has not been back into facility since incident and has been placed on Do Not Rehire/Allow to work in facility and the agency, (Company) that (V4 Former RN) works for has suspended her pending the investigation. A complete narcotic count has been completed by the Administrator and DON with no further discrepancies noted. The DON and/or Administrator will monitor the narcotic count sheets for two nurse signatures daily. Pharmacy to replace the medication as soon as Physician can write a script for the replacement medication. The facility's investigation includes V20's (local) Police Officer business card with a complaint number 24-8835 having been filed by the facility. The EMAR, dated March 2024, documents R1 with no complaints of pain 3/6/24 through 3/7/24 and no Oxycodone being administered to R1. On 4/2/24 at 3:00 pm, V7 LPN/Licensed Practical Nurse stated V4 Former RN was his relief at shift change for two days and the narcotic count was spot on both times. V7 LPN stated, Because the count was correct, I didn't notice anything. V7 LPN stated (V4 Former RN) was a bit odd, I thought. I love my job but (V4 Former RN) was beyond happy and excited to be here. On 4/2/24 at 1:07 pm, V2 DON stated on 3/8/24 V19 LPN/Licensed Practical Nurse, discovered R1 was administered five doses of Oxycodone in two days when R1 had not been taking any of it since February and V19 LPN thought it was suspicious and contacted V2 DON. V19 LPN knew R1 and due to having worked with her for some time. V2 DON stated she and V1 Administrator started the investigation and did notice that R1 hadn't taken any Oxycodone since 2/19/24 and then received five doses within two days. V4 Former RN/Registered Nurse signed the Oxycodone out on R1's paper narcotic sheet but did not sign the medication out in the EMAR (electronic Medication Administration Record) and scored R1 as having no pain on the pain assessment and did not administer any Tylenol to R1. V2 DON stated she spoke to R1, who is alert and oriented and R1 stated she had not received any of Oxycodone for a while and was trying not to take Tylenol anymore. V2 DON stated she contacted the facility float pool agency where V4 Former RN worked, and V4 Former RN was suspended pending the investigation and was made a DNR (do not return) from the facility. V2 DON stated everyone was notified and a report was filed with the police and a few days later the float pool agency informed the facility they had terminated V4 Former RN's position and V4 would no longer be working in any of the company's facilities. On 4/2/24 at 1:25 PM, V1 Administrator stated she and V2 DON did the investigation and completed narcotic counts on all of the facility medication carts and the counts were all correct. V1 Administrator stated all residents receiving narcotic medications were interviewed and they all said they received their medications except for R1. R1 said she had not taken the Oxycodone for some time and was even trying not to take Tylenol. R1 said no nurse came in to give her the Oxycodone during the past few weeks. V1 Administrator stated V4 Former RN was made a DNR (do not rehire) to the facility and the float pool suspended V4 and a few days later terminated her from the company. V4 Former RN was new to the facility and only worked those few days and due to the narcotic count being correct at shift change no one noticed anything out of the ordinary. V19 LPN was familiar with R1 and noticed that after not taking the Oxycodone for some time, R1 was randomly given five doses in two days, thought it odd and reported it right away. V1 Administrator stated, Because the narcotic count was correct during shift change, no one noticed anything out of the ordinary. V4 Former RN literally signed the medications off on the narcotic sheet and noticed that V4 did not sign them off in the electronic charting and documented R1 not having pain. V1 said, (R1) was alert and oriented and did not appear to be medicated at all and so it was pretty obvious what had happened. The police were called, a report filed, and the narcotic count sign off forms were changed from three shifts to two shifts due to the nurses working 12-hour shifts.
Jul 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

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 provide an appropriate indication for use of an antipsy...

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 provide an appropriate indication for use of an antipsychotic medication for two residents (R31, R33) with diagnosis of dementia of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in the sample of 22. Findings include: Facility Policy/Use of Psychotropic Medication dated 2023 documents: The indications for use of any psychotropic drug will be documented in the medical record. Non-pharmacological interventions that have been attempted, and the target symptoms for monitoring shall be included in the documentation. Facility Policy/Antipsychotic medication Use dated/revised 2021 documents: Residents will only receive antipsychotic medications when necessary to treat specific conditions for which they are indicated and effective. Diagnoses alone do not warrant the use of antipsychotic medication. For enduring psychiatric conditions, antipsychotic medications will not be used unless behavioral symptoms are: not due to psychological stressors (e.g., loneliness, taunting, abuse), or anxiety or fear stemming from misunderstanding related to his or her cognitive impairment (e.g., the mistaken belief that this is not where he/she lives or inability to find clothes or glasses) that can be expected to improve or resolve as the situation is addressed. Antipsychotic medications will not be used if the only symptoms are one or more of the following: Uncooperativeness Wandering Restlessness Mild Anxiety Impaired Memory 1) Current Physician's Order Report Summary indicates R31 is [AGE] years old with diagnoses that include Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance and Anxiety; Brief Psychotic Disorder (4/4/23); Mild Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance (10/1/22); Unspecified Psychosis (3/17/20). Order Summary indicates R31 has orders for Olanzapine (antipsychotic) 2.5mg (milligrams) every bedtime increased on 4/5/23 related to Unspecified Psychosis (4/23/23). Informed Consent for Psychotropic Medication indicates consent for Olanzapine Recommended Daily Total Dosage Range 5mg - 10mg, Anticipated Dosage Range 5mg with Reason for Use of Medication Psychosis, Mood Stabilizer on 2/14/19. Consent does not indicate specific, target behaviors. Behavior Monitoring and Interventions Report dated June/July 2023 indicates R31 continues to exhibit physically aggressive behaviors with care, expresses frustration/anger at others, attempts to scratch, kick and hit. On 7/13/23 at 9:45am V10, CNA (CNA) stated R31 pinches, scratches and hits anytime she needs to be changed, and it is worse with showers. V10 stated R31 is calm and has no behaviors except when staff are providing personal care. Telemedicine Psychiatric Periodic Evaluation dated 4/4/23 indicates, (R31) has had more psychotic and aggression symptoms with staff of recent. Evaluation does not indicate specific psychosis R31 was exhibiting. Telemedicine Psychiatric Periodic Evaluation dated 620/4/23 indicates, (R31) has had psychotic and aggression symptoms with staff associated with cares and ADL's (Activities of Daily Living) but none noted since 6/11/23. Evaluation does not indicate specific psychosis R31 was exhibiting. Care Plan dated 8/3/22 indicates, Olanzapine related to Unspecified Psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. Care Plan indicates R31 is noncompliant with care/showers; verbally/physically aggressive; has a behavioral problem - strikes out at caregivers related to dementia. The Care Plan does not include any psychotic behaviors with main behaviors exhibited as aggressive to staff with cares. 2) Current Physician order Report Summary indicates R33 has orders for Seroquel (antipsychotic) 25mg twice daily ordered on 4/5/23 for Depression/Delusions. Physician Summary Report indicates R33 is [AGE] years old and has diagnoses that includes Alzheimer's Late Onset (1/4/21) and Delusional Disorder (12/31/20). Consent For Psychotropic Medication 2/17/21 indicates consent was given on that date for R33 to receive Seroquel (antipsychotic) 50mg daily. No indication for use, diagnosis or target behaviors were documented on the consent for Seroquel. Behavior Monitoring and Intervention Report for June/July 2023 indicates on 6/6/23, R33 entered other resident's rooms/personal space, was hoarding, pacing and wandering. Report indicates R33 did not display any other behavior(s) in 60 days. On 7/13/23 at 9:45am V10, CNA stated R33 doesn't display any behaviors anymore. V10 stated R33 previously would run in the hallway and try to go out the exit door. Current Care Plan dated 8/17/22 indicates R33 receives Seroquel for depression and delusions; wanders and is an elopement risk related to dementia. Care plan also indicates R33 has a behavior problem of striking out at caregivers related to dementia. No target behaviors or identification of delusions is documented in R33's care plan. Both R31 and R33 were observed during various times of the day - both in bed and in the milieu - on 7/11/23, 7/12/23 and 7/13/23 and both were calm with no observable behaviors. On 7/12/23 at 1:45pm V3, Nurse Consultant stated they are working on better behavior monitoring, more specific behaviors, and a new psychotropic consent form.
Aug 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. R40's current Physician Order Sheets dated 7/31/22 through 8/16/22, documents R40 receives Olanzapine Tablet 2.5mg (milligrams) four times weekly for Psychosis. This same POS documents R40 has diag...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. R40's current Physician Order Sheets dated 7/31/22 through 8/16/22, documents R40 receives Olanzapine Tablet 2.5mg (milligrams) four times weekly for Psychosis. This same POS documents R40 has diagnoses of Dementia with behavioral disturbances. R40's MARs dated 6/1/22 through 8/15/22 document Antipsychotic Behavior Tracking of document number of episodes of mood swings and suspicious behaviors every shift. This behavior tracking does not include any behaviors of harm to herself or harm to other residents, or any non-pharmacological interventions used along with effectiveness of these interventions. The behavior tracking for mood swing episode documents R40 has not had any of these behaviors. R40's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessments dated 4/26/22 and 7/26/22 document R40 receives an anti-psychotic medication daily and does not have any physical, verbal, or other behavior symptoms. On 8/15/22 at 11:30 am., R40 was sitting in her wheelchair exhibiting no adverse behaviors. On 8/16/22 at 11:35AM, V7/Registered Nurse stated, (R40) does not have behaviors of harm to herself or toward other residents. On 8/16/22 at 1:30 PM, V2/Director of Nursing stated, R40 did have behaviors in the past verbally and physically towards staff, but has had a stroke and does not have these behaviors. V2 also stated, they have not been tracking behaviors of aggression towards herself or others and there is no documentation of any harmful behaviors towards herself or other residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to attempt an annual GDR (Gradual Dose Reduction), document clinically indicated diagnoses and behaviors, and implement non-pharmacological interventions for the use of anti-psychotic medications for two of three residents (R3, R40) reviewed for anti-psychotic medication use with the diagnosis of Dementia/Alzheimer's in the sample of 24. Findings include: The facility's Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) of Psychotropic Drugs policy dated 2-1-22 documents, Policy: Residents who use psychotropic drugs receive gradual dose reductions and behavioral interventions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue these drugs. Reducing the need for and maximizing the effectiveness of medications shall be considered for all residents who receive psychotropic drugs. Therefore, dose reductions and behavioral interventions are part of medication management. This policy pertains to gradual dose reductions. Within the first year in which a resident is admitted on a psychotropic medication or after the prescribing practitioner has initiated a psychotropic medication, the facility will attempt a GDR in two separate quarters. 3. After the first year, a GDR will be attempted annually, unless clinically contraindicated. 1. R3's admission Orders dated 12-31-20 document, Seroquel 25 mg (milligram), two tablets every night for diagnoses of Depression and Delusions. R3's Physician's Order Sheets (POS's) dated 12-31-20 through 8-16-22 document R3 has received Seroquel 25 mg two tablets every night and has not had a GDR (Gradual Dose Reduction) attempt. These same POS forms document R3 has diagnoses of Major Depression, Delusional Disorder, Alzheimer's Disease with Late Onset, and Major Depression. R3's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessments dated 2-3-22, 5-6-22, and 8-5-22 document R3 receives an anti-psychotic medication daily and does not have physical, verbal, or other behavior symptoms. R3's Medication Administration Records (MAR) dated 6-1-22 through 8-16-22 document R3 has had no hallucinations and has only had delusions on two days during this time. These same MARs do not include documentation of non-pharmacological interventions used along with effectiveness of these interventions to treat R3's delusions. On 8/15/22 at 10:06 AM, R3 was walking up and down the 500 hallway. R3 had no adverse behaviors at this time and was easily re-directed by V5 (CNA\Certified Nursing Assistant). On 08/15/22 at 10:10 AM, V5 (CNA) stated, (R3's) only behavior is wandering and trying to exit the facility. (R3) never has verbal or physical behaviors that I am aware of. On 08/16/22 at 10:48 AM V2 (Director of Nursing) stated, (R3) has never had a GDR attempt of her Seroquel since (R3) was admitted . The facility has not had a psychiatrist to see the residents in a while and (V6/R3's Physician) does not like to mess with anti-psychotic medications if he was not the one to prescribe them. (R3) takes Seroquel for wandering and non-compliance with cares and re-direction. I know those behaviors are not justification for the use of Seroquel and we (the facility) should have attempted to reduce (R3's) Seroquel. There is also no documentation of non-pharmacological interventions attempted to treat (R3's) behaviors.
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 B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Illinois.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
  • • 38% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Allure Of Lake Storey's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY 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 Allure Of Lake Storey Staffed?

CMS rates ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Allure Of Lake Storey?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 7 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Allure Of Lake Storey?

ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY 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 ALLURE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 180 certified beds and approximately 59 residents (about 33% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in GALESBURG, Illinois.

How Does Allure Of Lake Storey Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Allure Of Lake Storey?

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 Allure Of Lake Storey Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY 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 Allure Of Lake Storey Stick Around?

ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY has a staff turnover rate of 38%, 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 Allure Of Lake Storey Ever Fined?

ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY 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 Allure Of Lake Storey on Any Federal Watch List?

ALLURE OF LAKE STOREY 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.