SPRING CREEK
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Spring Creek nursing home in Joliet, Illinois, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its operations and care quality. With a state rank of #404 out of 665 facilities, they are in the bottom half of Illinois, and #10 out of 16 in Will County, meaning there are only a few local homes that perform better. The facility's situation is improving, as they reduced their issues from 10 in 2024 to 3 in 2025, but it still has serious weaknesses, especially in staffing, which received a poor rating of 1 out of 5 stars. Notably, there are concerning incidents reported, such as a resident requiring CPR after a critical nursing error and another sustaining burns from hot liquids due to a lack of supervision. While the facility has a relatively low staff turnover at 37%, indicating some stability, the overall care environment raises significant red flags for families considering placement here.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Illinois
- #404/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 37% turnover. Near Illinois's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $115,684 in fines. Higher than 93% of Illinois facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Illinois. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 36 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 (37%)
11 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)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
2 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a timely ambulance transfer for a resident experiencing respiratory distress.
This applies to 1 resident (R1) reviewed for change ...
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
Deficiency F0694
(Tag F0694)
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 care and maintenance of a tunneled PICC (Peripherally Inser...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to implement safety interventions and provide supervision to prevent a resident from injury when drinking hot liquids.
This fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
7 deficiencies
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 R15's G-tube (Gastrostomy) placement prior to administration of G-tube feeding and administer the feeding at the ordere...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to administer medications as ordered.
There were 30 oppo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0813
(Tag F0813)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 10/22/24 at 10:25 AM R56's personal refrigerator in her room contained six oranges that were old, soft, brown, with mold o...
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** 6. On 10/22/24 at 11:08 AM, a bottle of bisacodyl 5 mg (milligram) stimulant laxative was seen on the bedside table of R32. On 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 apply splints and braces to residents who required th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On October 22, 2024 at 10:32 AM, R15's was lying in a low air loss mattress and was angled in the reverse Trendelenburg posit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to staff Registered Nurses (RNs) 8 consecutive hours, 7 days a week.
This has the potential to affect all the residents in the facility.
The ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide supervision to a cognitively impaired resident, while outdo...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
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
Deficiency F0567
(Tag F0567)
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 one resident (R1) access to their funds as pe...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 keep residents safe from resident to resident abuse. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
6 deficiencies
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 supportive devices to residents to prevent fu...
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 follow their policy to supervise a resident that is id...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
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 offer residents the pneumococcal vaccine according to CDC (Centers ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 identify and assist residents identified as needing a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 provide a sanitary urinary catheter insertion and fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
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 follow standard infection control practices related to hand hygiene and gloving during provisions of catheter and incontinenc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
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 ensure a system was in place to show mechanical lift slings were bei...
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
Deficiency F0776
(Tag F0776)
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 ensure a resident received a CT (Computerized Tomography) Scan as o...
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
Deficiency F0778
(Tag F0778)
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 ensure a resident was provided assistance to obtain transportation ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
1 deficiency
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
F812
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store food in a manner to prevent contamination and food borne illness. This applies to 83 out of 89 residents that rece...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure faxed physician medication orders were transcribed into the resident's physician orders in the electronic medical record. This failu...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
2 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0808
(Tag F0808)
Someone could have died · 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 a resident with a pureed diet as ordered by the physician. T...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of nursing when a nurse changed a resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
2 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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
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 follow their policy to notify a resident's responsible party of a ...
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
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 residents with indwelling urinary catheters re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
3. On 1/10/23 at 1:35 PM, during the initial tour on the 2nd floor, R23 had a bottle of Fluticasone Propionate 50 mcg (Micrograms) nasal spray on her bedside table. On 1/11/23 at 11:16 AM, R23 said sh...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assist residents with ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) who require assistance with personal hygiene and grooming.
This appl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to follow its G-Tube (Gastrostomy) and blood glucose policy. This applies to three of three residents (R9 reviewed for G-tube ...
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain a safe environment for one resident (R41) in a sample of 27.
Findings include:
On 01/10/23 at 11:51 AM, R41 was ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0813
(Tag F0813)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3. On 1/10/23, R4's personal fridge was checked, and it contained blueberry yogurt that expired on 12/16/22, and a package of meat, which expired on 12/28/22. R4's fridge had a temperature log that st...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. R23's face sheet showed R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and her diagnoses include personal history of urinary trac...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
2 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
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 meet professional standards of nursing by signing the resident TAR ...
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
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received wound care as ordered by the physician.
T...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 37% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $115,684 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 36 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $115,684 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Illinois. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (8/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Spring Creek's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SPRING CREEK 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 Spring Creek Staffed?
CMS rates SPRING CREEK's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Spring Creek?
State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at SPRING CREEK during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, and 32 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Spring Creek?
SPRING CREEK 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 SABA HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 168 certified beds and approximately 114 residents (about 68% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in JOLIET, Illinois.
How Does Spring Creek Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, SPRING CREEK's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Spring Creek?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Spring Creek Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SPRING CREEK has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Illinois. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Spring Creek Stick Around?
SPRING CREEK has a staff turnover rate of 37%, 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 Spring Creek Ever Fined?
SPRING CREEK has been fined $115,684 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.4x the Illinois average of $34,236. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Spring Creek on Any Federal Watch List?
SPRING CREEK 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.