COUNTRY HEALTH
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Country Health in Gifford, Illinois, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its care quality and overall operations. With a state ranking of #348 out of 665 facilities, they are in the bottom half of Illinois nursing homes, but they rank #2 out of 4 in Champaign County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is showing improvement, reducing issues from 11 in 2024 to just 2 in 2025, although it still reported 27 deficiencies, including serious incidents where residents experienced skin breakdown and choking due to a lack of proper monitoring and care interventions. Staffing is rated average with a 42% turnover, which is slightly below the state average, and they have an average RN coverage, ensuring some level of oversight. However, the $73,353 in fines raises concerns about compliance issues, and the facility has faced serious incidents where residents did not receive adequate pain control and monitoring, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses in their care approach.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Illinois
- #348/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 42% turnover. Near Illinois's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $73,353 in fines. Lower than most Illinois facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Illinois. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (42%)
6 points below Illinois average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Illinois average (2.5)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan for elopement risk and the use of a departure alert system. This failure af...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide one staff assistance to prevent a fall for one (R1) of three...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
10 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 provide targeted interventions to prevent skin breakdow...
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** Failures at this level require more than one deficient practice statement.
A. Based on interview and record review the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain resident's furniture in a clean manner for two of 24 residents (R74, R61) reviewed for clean, comfortable, homelike en...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
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 resident was free from restraint by not having...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement hearing devices and develop a care plan for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to check and record gastric residual volume to verify gastrostomy tube placement, and administer and record water flushes and ent...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to label, store, and change oxygen and nebulizer tubing for three (R17, R39, R84) of three residents reviewed for respiratory car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to administer medications timely and according to physician's orders and manufacturer's instructions for four (R17, R61, R42, R4)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop, implement, measure, act on or analyze a performance improvement program project in the last twelve months. This failure has the pot...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to store, handle, and launder linens that were potentially exposed to scabies. This failure has the potential to affect all 85 residents who re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement infection control measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Human Coronavirus Infection) by failing to stock isola...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
9 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide effective pain control and positioning aids for...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 significant weight loss, prevent significant ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to assess two of two residents (R47, R58) reviewed for safe self-administration of medication in the sample list of 36.
Findings I...
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 complete pressure ulcer risk assessments, routinely as...
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
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to complete fall investigations, develop, and implement fall interventions for one of three residents (R77) reviewed for falls in the sample li...
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 secure R24's catheter and failed to provide R24 with hy...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain a gastrostomy (G-tube) site in a clean sanitary manner for one resident (R38) of one resident reviewed for gastrostom...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to timely administer pneumococcal vaccines to ensure residents are up t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure quarterly Quality Assurance (QA) meetings included all required committee members. This failure affects all 81 residents residing in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
3 deficiencies
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to operationalize their abuse prevention policy by reporting failures and delay in investigation of alleged resident abuse. Thes...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation involving abuse to the facility administrator and the Illinois Department of Public Health within the required 2 hour...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to take measures to prevent the potential for further abuse or mistreatment of residents by not initiating an investigation of a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0886
(Tag F0886)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to conduct resident and staff COVID-19 (Human Coronavirus) testing duri...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Human Coronavirus Inf...
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
- • 42% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 harm violation(s), $73,353 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 27 deficiencies on record, including 4 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $73,353 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Illinois. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (20/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Country Health's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns COUNTRY HEALTH an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Illinois, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Country Health Staffed?
CMS rates COUNTRY HEALTH's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Country Health?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at COUNTRY HEALTH during 2022 to 2025. These included: 4 that caused actual resident harm and 23 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Country Health?
COUNTRY HEALTH is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by HERITAGE OPERATIONS GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 89 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GIFFORD, Illinois.
How Does Country Health Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, COUNTRY HEALTH's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Country Health?
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 Country Health Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, COUNTRY HEALTH 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Country Health Stick Around?
COUNTRY HEALTH has a staff turnover rate of 42%, 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 Country Health Ever Fined?
COUNTRY HEALTH has been fined $73,353 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Illinois average of $33,812. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Country Health on Any Federal Watch List?
COUNTRY HEALTH 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.