GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Greenfields of Geneva has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not outstanding. It ranks #41 out of 665 nursing homes in Illinois, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and #4 out of 25 in Kane County, meaning only three local options are better. The facility is improving, having reduced its number of reported issues from 15 in 2023 to just 4 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 star rating and higher RN coverage than 98% of Illinois facilities, suggesting residents receive attentive care. However, there are concerns as the facility has faced $14,203 in fines, indicating some compliance issues, and serious incidents include a resident developing a severe pressure injury that required hospitalization and another resident needing emergency care after an unsafe wheelchair transfer. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should weigh these against the reported incidents.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Illinois
- #41/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 47% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $14,203 in fines. Higher than 93% of Illinois facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 110 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Illinois nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
4 deficiencies
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 administer medications as ordered. There were 30 opportunities with 2 errors resulting in a 6.67 % error rate. This applies to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
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 discontinue an antibiotic for a resident who did not meet criteria ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to safely store medications for residents who were not a...
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 properly label, date, seal, store items, remove expired items, and wear hair restraint while serving food from facility kitch...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
9 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · 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 identify an area of pressure prior to it becoming unst...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed for safety prior to the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 peri care was performed in a manner to prevent ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a physician order was obtained and a care plan ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to document and maintain an accurate count of narcotic medications for 1 resident (R6) in the sample of 12 and 1 resident (R95) ...
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 administer medications at ordered times. There were 25 opportunities with 3 errors resulting in a 12% medication error rate. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store medications per manufacturer's directions and facility policy for 2 of 2 residents (R11, R37) outside of the sample rev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide evening snacks for 5 residents (R4, R19, R25, R26, R28). This applies to 5 of 5 resident's outside of the sample revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was kept off the floor, failed to maintain food storage areas in a clean and orderly manner, failed to ensure ice...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
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
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to supervise a resident to prevent a resident's fall. This failure resulted in R1 sustaining a displaced fracture of the left ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to a resident (R6). This ap...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pressure ulcer prevention measures for a resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide range of motion (ROM) exercises for a residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to transfer a resident (R13) with a gait belt. This appl...
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 wear hair nets while working in the kitchen, thaw foods in a manner to prevent a food borne illness and failed to cover bulk fo...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $14,203 in fines. Above average for Illinois. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Greenfields Of Geneva's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA 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 Greenfields Of Geneva Staffed?
CMS rates GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 47%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Greenfields Of Geneva?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA during 2023 to 2024. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 16 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Greenfields Of Geneva?
GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by LIFESPACE COMMUNITIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 43 certified beds and approximately 41 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GENEVA, Illinois.
How Does Greenfields Of Geneva Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (47%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Greenfields Of Geneva?
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 Greenfields Of Geneva Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA 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 Greenfields Of Geneva Stick Around?
GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA has a staff turnover rate of 47%, 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 Greenfields Of Geneva Ever Fined?
GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA has been fined $14,203 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Illinois average of $33,221. 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 Greenfields Of Geneva on Any Federal Watch List?
GREENFIELDS OF GENEVA 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.