LAKE FOREST PLACE

1100 PEMBRIDGE DRIVE, LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 (847) 604-6701
Non profit - Corporation 50 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#53 of 665 in IL
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Lake Forest Place has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #53 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 24 in Lake County, indicating that only one local facility is rated higher. However, the facility is facing a worsening trend with the number of issues increasing from three in 2023 to six in 2024. Staffing is a strength, with a 5/5 star rating and only 35% turnover, which is significantly lower than the state average, ensuring that staff are familiar with the residents. On the downside, there have been specific concerns, such as a resident who fell from bed despite being at high risk and confusion over feeding tube placement, which highlights areas needing improvement in care practices. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and ranking, families should be aware of the increasing number of issues and specific incidents that raise concerns about resident safety.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Illinois
#53/665
Top 7%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% 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
✓ Good
Each resident gets 130 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
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2024: 6 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (35%)

    13 points below Illinois average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 35%

10pts below Illinois avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Dec 2024 3 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to check placement of a feeding tube prior to administeri...

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 check placement of a feeding tube prior to administering a nutritional supplement for 1 of 1 resident (R25) reviewed for feeding tubes in the sample of 12. The findings include: R25's face sheet printed on 12/12/24 showed diagnoses including but not limited to Parkinson's disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), dementia, epilepsy, and protein-calorie malnutrition. R25's facility assessment dated [DATE] showed severe cognitive impairment and the use of a G tube for nutrition (gastrostomy tube-soft, plastic feeding tube that goes into the stomach). R25's December 2024 order summary report showed an order start dated 7/2/24 for: .enteral feeding give 1 carton (237 milliliters) of Jevity 1.5 calorie at noon per G tube . The same report showed orders start dated 7/1/24 to check placement of the G tube before administering medication or feedings. On 12/11/24 at 1:27 PM, V9 (Registered Nurse) administered R25's enteral feeding while he was in bed. The end of the tube inserting into R25's stomach was covered with a white dressing and was not visible. V9 poured the liquid nutrition and water into a plastic beaker. V9 connected a plastic syringe to the end of the G tube and flushed the tube. V9 poured the liquids into the tube and flushed it again. V9 did not check placement of the tube prior to administering the feeding. At 1:45 PM, V9 stated she usually uses the aspiration method to check placement. She uses a stethoscope connected to the G tube and listens for a puff of air. V9 said she did not do it today because she did not have her stethoscope with her. V9 stated it is important the tube is in the right place, so the nutrition goes into the stomach. On 12/12/24 at 10:44 AM, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated nurses should be checking for placement using the aspiration method, residual method, or look for the mark on the tubing where it is inserted. They need to check placement prior to administering anything to reduce the danger of the tube having been dislodged. There is the potential for an infection in the abdominal wall if the tube is not in the right place. R25's care plan showed a focus area related to risk of aspiration pneumonia from the use of a feeding tube. Interventions included checking for placement and gastric contents/residual volume per facility protocol and record (start dated 10/14/24). The facility's Enteral Nutrition policy last review dated 3/31/24 states under the verifying placement of feeding tube section: 1. Tube placement is checked prior to administering medications tube flushes, or enteral formula.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure PPE (personal protective equipment) was worn in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure PPE (personal protective equipment) was worn in a manner to prevent cross contamination for 1 of 1 resident (R8) reviewed for infection control in the sample of 12. The findings include: On 12/10/24 at 11:19 AM, R8 had a PPE bin outside the door. There was a large sign on the door of the room that said, STOP Enhanced Barrier Precautions. The signage had illustrations to show gloves and gowns must be worn during high-contact resident care activities. The care activities included but were not limited to: dressing, transferring, and assisting with toileting when a urinary catheter was in use. This surveyor entered the room and R8 was standing at the sink while brushing his teeth. V11 (CNA-Certified Nurse Aide) was in the bathroom and wearing only gloves. V11 assisted R8 across the room using a gait belt and walker, then transferred him to an upright recliner. V11 emptied the garbage can and exited the room. V11 was not wearing a gown at any time during the care. R8 stated he has a catheter because he can't get to the toilet in time. R8 stated he needs help from the staff for all transfers and to get dressed. R8 stated V11 had just helped him use the toilet and put his pants on before this surveyor entered the room. R8 said staff usually wear gloves but do not always wear a gown when they empty his catheter or him use the toilet. R8's facility assessment dated [DATE] showed he was cognitively intact and the use of a urinary catheter. On 12/11/24 at 10:24 AM, V12 (Infection Control Preventionist) stated the enhanced barrier precaution signs show staff what they need to wear in the room. Residents with catheters have the precaution signs and PPE outside every room. Gowns and gloves should be worn during high-contact care which does include transferring, toileting, and dressing a resident. The PPE is important to help stop the transfer of germs from resident to resident. On 12/11/24 at 1:58 PM, V11 (CNA) stated she needs a gown and gloves on basically anytime she enters R8's room because he has a catheter. V12 said she did have a gown on yesterday during care but took it off while he was brushing his teeth. V12 said she should have still been wearing one while transferring him. On 12/12/24 at 10:39 AM, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated aides need to wear a gown and gloves when providing care to a resident with a catheter. Especially if they need to touch the lower part of the body. V2 said R8 is alert, oriented, and has no memory problems. V2 stated proper PPE is important in case urine splashes. It is an infection control issue. Urine on staff clothing can transfer microorganisms to other residents. The facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) policy last revision dated 9/3/24 states under the procedure section: 11. PPE, gloves and gowns, will be required for all staff providing high-contact care activities which include .dressing, transferring, providing hygiene, changing briefs or assisting with toileting. The policy listed the use of urinary catheters as an indication for the implementation of enhanced barrier precautions.
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 dishes were washed in a manner to prevent cross-contamination and failed store thickener in a manner to prevent cross-c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure dishes were washed in a manner to prevent cross-contamination and failed store thickener in a manner to prevent cross-contamination. This affects all 44 residents residing in the facility. The findings include: The facility's CMS 671 Form dated 12/10/24 shoed there were 44 residents residing in the facility. 1. On 12/10/24 at 10:08 AM, the surveyor, V3 (Dietitian), V4 (Director of Dining Services), and V8 (Dietary Manager) returned to the main kitchen. The dishwashing area was inside the door, to the left. The dishwashing station was a small square shaped area, with an opening to enter the area. The dirty dishes were stacked to the left of the dishwasher and directly across the area, from the dishwasher. The clean dishes were removed from the right side of the dishwasher and stacked against the adjacent wall. The 3 compartment sink was positioned to the right of the clean dishes (or on the opposite wall from the dishwasher). The additional dirty dishes were stacked at the end of the 3 compartment sink. V5 (Dishwasher) applied green, rubber gloves that extended to his elbows. V5 sprayed food debris from a large, rectangular shaped plastic bin. The food debris and water sprayed back toward V5. V5 placed the plastic bin into the dishwasher and returned to spraying food debris from the dirty dishes. The dishwasher cycle completed and V5 moved directly from the dirty dishes to remove the clean, plastic bin and move it into the drying area. V5 did not remove the soiled gloves and he didn't not clean his hands. V5 moved back to the dirty dishes and continued to spray food debris from the mixing bowls and stainless steel containers. V3 (Dietitian) walked over to V5 and whispered to him. V5 stopped washing dishes. V4 (Director of Dining Services) tested the sanitizer levels of the 3 compartment sink and left the dishwashing area. V5 resumed spraying food debris from the dirty dishes. V5 placed a load of mixing bowls and stainless steel containers into the dishwasher and returned to spray food debris from the dirty dishes. When the dishwasher cycle was complete, V5 turned to the clean side of the dishwasher, removed the clean dishes, and stacked them in the drying area. V5 continued to wear the same green rubber gloves and didn't not wash his hands when moving from clean to dirty. V5 continued to move from clean to dirty and back to clean without washing his hands. V5 was observed until 10:17 AM. On 12/11/24 at 11:30 AM, V4 (Director of Dining Services) said she expects the dishwasher to scrub dishes and removed food debris and place the dishes in the dishwasher. V4 said if the dishwasher is moving from dirty dishes to clean dishes, then he should have washed his hands to prevent cross-contamination. V4 said he shouldn't have been going back and forth from clean to dirty without washing his hands. The facility's Hand Hygiene and Infection Control Policy revised 1/24 showed, In the Food & Nutrition Department: All associates associated with the handling of food shall wash hands. Hands are washed with soap and water and the following times: .Before handling food or clean utensils/dishes/equipment . Procedures: All Food Handlers: Use only sinks designated for hand washing . A Dishwashing Policy was requested and not received. 2. On 12/11/25 at 9:19 AM, V6 (Cook) was in the rear station chopping raw vegetables. There was a small, clear plastic bin of thickener along the back of the counter. The container had a lid on it. A stainless steel measuring cup was half buried inside the thickener. The handle of the measuring cup was under a layer of thickener. V6 prepared the buttered carrot puree. V6 said the consistency was too thin and he would need to add thickener. V6 removed the lid to the thickener container, left the buried measuring cup in the thickener, and obtained a clean measuring cup to scoop thickener. V6 added the thickener to the carrots and left second measuring cup inside the thickener container. At 9:28 AM, V6 pureed the pork carnitas for the quesadilla. V6 said the puree was too thin and he needed to add some thickener. V6 removed the half buried, measuring cup from the thickener, and used the handle to scoop thickener. V6 added the thickener to the pork mixture and blended the food further. V6 returned the measuring cup to the container of thickener. The thickener now had 2 measuring cups sitting inside the container. On 12/11/24 at 11:30 AM, V4 (Director of Dining Services) said scoops or measuring cups shouldn't be stored in the thickener due to the risk of cross-contamination. V4 stated, They know better than that. The facility's Storage of Pots, Dishes, Flatware, Utensils Policy reviewed 1/23 showed, Procedure: Pots, dishes, and flatware are to be stored in such a way as to prevent contamination by splash, dust, pests, or other means. Procedures: Dish Handlers, Trayline Area Associates: .Store utensils vertically, in a bucket with handles pointing up, to reduce opportunities for contamination .
Aug 2024 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 resident dignity was maintained during dining for 1 of 6 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident dignity was maintained during dining for 1 of 6 residents (R1) reviewed for dignity in the sample of 6. The findings include: R1's face sheet printed on 8/14/24 showed diagnoses including but not limited to atrial fibrillation, pulmonary embolism, malnutrition, Alzheimer's Disease, and dementia. R1's facility assessment dated [DATE] showed severe cognitive impairment and substantial/maximal staff assistance needed for eating. On 8/14/24 at 1:51 PM, V8 (R1's daughter) stated she was visiting R1 on the morning of 7/8/24 and found her seated in the group dining room wearing only a hospital type nightgown. V8 said R1 had a blanket draped over her shoulder's but nothing over the rest of her. V8 said she absolutely brought clothes to the facility including pajamas, the day prior. V8 said she immediately complained to staff. V8 was told that R1 was restless during the early morning hours and was taken to the nurse station in her nightgown. Staff reported R1 was sent to the dining room wearing the same gown when breakfast began. V8 said R1 looked ungroomed and her hair was a mess. On 8/14/24 at 12:49 PM, V3 (Social Service Director) stated she was at a staff morning meeting in July and was told R1's family member (V8) was unhappy with R1's care. V8 found R1 in the group dining room seated at the breakfast table wearing a hospital type gown and was poorly groomed. V3 said the entire morning team heard about it and knew V8 was unhappy about the situation. V3 said she met with V8 to further discuss the situation. V3 said it never should have happened. It is undignified and not the normal procedure. On 8/14/24 at 12:58 PM, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated all residents should receive morning cares, including face washed, hair combed, and appropriately dressed, before leaving their room. V2 said he was aware that R1 had been placed in the group dining room while still wearing her night gown. V2 said he knew V8 complained to staff when she saw R1 undressed and outside of her room. V2 said residents should be dressed before coming out of their rooms. It is the decent thing to do. The facility's Quality of Life policy last review dated 3/31/24 states under the dignity section: Nursing staff- 1. [NAME] resident as they wish to be groomed. Maintains personal privacy by keeping residents covered/clothed while being taken to areas outside their room. 2. Encourage/assists resident to dress in their own clothing rather than hospital-type gowns and to wear appropriate footwear according to their preferences.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment by allowing a damaged nightstand to remain in a resident room for 1 of 6 residents (R4) reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment by allowing a damaged nightstand to remain in a resident room for 1 of 6 residents (R4) reviewed for environment in the sample of 6. The findings include: On 8/14/24 at 1:51 PM, V8 stated her aunt was a resident at the facility for about one week in July 2024. V8 said the nightstand in the room was damaged during the entire time. The top handle was hanging off and the left upper corner was missing a section. V8 said staff were repeatedly in and out of the room but the nightstand was never repaired or replaced. On 8/14/24 at 10:44 AM, the facility nightstand in the same room V8's aunt had resided in was observed. The handle was still falling off and the left, upper corner was heavily damaged. R4 was the resident currently residing in the room. R4 said it had been that way since she arrived at the facility. On 8/14/24 at 1:32 PM, V5 (Maintenance Technician) stated he was unaware of any complaints or work repair orders for the nightstand. V5 said items like nightstands can typically be repaired the same day it is reported. On 8/14/24 at 1:55 PM, V1 (Administrator) stated damaged resident items should be reported right away. All staff are responsible for reporting it. Damaged room items just look bad and are not how things are kept around here. The facility's Personal Possessions and Safe Environment policy last revision dated 3/31/24 states under the purpose section: (Facility name), to the extent possible, provides a homelike environment. Provides housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly (uncluttered environment that is neat and well kept), and comfortable interior.
Jan 2024 1 deficiency
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 urinary catheter bags were kept from resting o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure urinary catheter bags were kept from resting on the floor and failed to secure the catheter tubing for 2 of 3 residents (R197 and R38) reviewed for catheters in the sample of 12. The findings include: On 1/8/24 at 11:22 AM, R197's urinary catheter bag was lying directly on the floor on the right side of her bed. On 1/8/24 at 11:41 AM, R38's urinary catheter bag was attached to her bed frame and her bed was low to the floor, therefore, resting directly on the floor, uncovered. On 1/8/24 at 2:03 PM, V6 and V7, Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) provided incontinence care to R38. R38's catheter tubing was not secured in any manner and was taut. After completing incontinence care, V6 and V7 positioned R38 on her back with the unsecured catheter tubing placed under her left leg. The drainage bag was hung on the bed frame, the bed was lowered and again the drainage bag was resting directly on the floor. On 1/8/24 at 2:31 PM, R197's urinary catheter bag was lying directly on the floor. On 1/10/24 at 2:25 PM, V6 said the first rule of catheter care is to not put the catheter on the floor. V6 said if the resident's bed needs to go low, we put the drainage bag in a dignity bag so it does not touch the floor directly and we hang it on the bed frame. V6 said we don't want it to touch the floor for infection control reasons; we don't want the patient to get a UTI (urinary tract infection). V6 said if the resident does not have the catheter secured, we tell the nurse, and they put the tubing in a secure holder on their leg so they don't pull it out and it's more comfortable. V6 said we position the tubing over the leg so it doesn't kink and to keep the urine from flowing back into the bladder. R38's Face Sheet printed 1/10/24 shows she is a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R38's diagnoses include, but are not limited to acute and chronic kidney disease and urinary retention, heart disease, and heart failure. R38's Care Plan for 12/22/23 through 1/11/24 shows she is at risk for infection related to her indwelling urinary catheter status. R197's Face Sheet printed 1/11/24 shows she is an [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] after having a myocardial infarction (heart attack). R197's diagnoses include, but are not limited to, heart failure, diabetes, urinary retention, hypertension, and protein malnutrition. R197's Care Plan for 1/4/24 through 1/11/24 shows she is at risk for infection related to her indwelling urinary catheter status. The facility's Bowel and Bladder Incontinence/Urinary Catheters/UTIs Policy (last reviewed 6/30/23) shows residents with urinary catheters will receive appropriate care and services to prevent UTIs. Care includes keeping the catheter anchored to prevent excessive tension on the catheter, which can lead to urethral tears or dislodging the catheter and securing the catheter to facilitate the flow of urine.
Mar 2023 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure fall risk interventions were in place for a resident (R27) at...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure fall risk interventions were in place for a resident (R27) at risk for falls with a history of falls. This failure contributed to R27 falling and sustaining a impacted and comminuted left femur fracture and a dislocated left knee. This applies to 1 of 13 residents reviewed for safety in the sample of 13. The findings include: R27's face sheet shows she has diagnoses including: history of falling, unsteadiness on feet, need for assistance with personal care, dizziness and reduced mobility. R27's 10/24/23 fall risk assessment shows she is at high risk for falls. R27's active care plan effective 6/1/2022 shows that she is alert and oriented x 2-3 but forgetful, at risk for falls, has an unsteady gait and needs limited to total assist of 1-2 staff with her activities of daily living. A intervention effective 6/1/2022 shows R27's bed should be in the lowest and locked position. R27's fall risk care plan shows she had a fall from bed on 10/24/22 and an updated intervention was added for a floor mattress on the left side of her bed. R27's 1/28/23 nursing progress notes completed by V9 (Registered Nurse/RN) at 7:50 PM states, CNA {V6} noted resident {R27} laying on her back with the pillow under her head. Unable to recall what happened she was verbally responsive but confused. Complained of left leg pain and back pain. Resident left facility in a stretcher at 7:55 PM. A nursing progress noted dated 1/29/23 at 1:23 AM, shows R27 was admitted to the hospital. R27's hospital records from a local community hospital show that she was admitted on [DATE] and discharged back to the facility on 2/2/2023. The hospital records state the following, Patient is a 94 y.o. female with past medical history of hypertension, neuropathy, presenting from {the facility} after a fall. Patient's daughter was present throughout the encounter. Reports that she received a call from {the facility} advising that the patient had been found on the floor next to her bed. Notes she has fallen before and usually mattresses are placed on the floor as bed rails are not allowed. However there was no mattress on the floor when incident occurred. Patient had been served dinner while laying in bed. Was found 30 minutes after that on the floor. The same hospital records show R27 sustained a fracture of the left distal femur. A radiology note dated 1/29/23 shows R27 has a There is a impacted and comminuted fracture (a bone broken in at least 2 places as a result of trauma -Web MD) of the distal left femur and intercondylar region with moderate displacement and angulation. There is anterior subluxation of the lateral femoral condyle (dislocated knee) in relation to the tibial plateau. There is soft tissue swelling of the left knee region and small hemarthosis (bleeding in the knee). R27 was discharged from the hospital back to the facility on 2/2/23 with orders for no weight bearing and a leg immobilizer. A IDPH Long Term Care Facility Incident and Accident Report investigation was provided by the facility. The investigation shows that R27 was found on the floor on the left side of her bed at 6:30 PM, on 1/28/23. A Post Fall Occurrence Follow-up provided with the investigation shows that factors contributing to the fall included confusion and impaired cognition. Factors of how the fall could be prevented include Mats on floor to minimize injury. On 3/7/23 at 8:43 AM, R27 was in bed eating her breakfast. Her bed was up against the wall on the right side of the room and raised up approximately 1/4 of the way. The overbed table legs were underneath her bed and her tray was on the table. A large blue thick fall mat was folded up and moved out creating an approximate 2 inch gap between the base of the bed and the mat. R27's left leg was elevated underneath the covers and the outline of her immobilizer was visible through the covers. R27 said, I don't remember all of what happened that day I was more confused I guess you could say, but I had a fall from bed, hit the floor and broke my leg. On 3/7/23 at 1:43 PM, V3 (Assistant Director of Nursing) said, I think what happened with R27's fall was that they have to raise up her bed to get the overbed table to go underneath it and have to pull the fall mat away from the bed because the table cannot sit on it. A fall mat would have minimized the impact from the fall onto the floor. R27 broke her leg and dislocated her knee when she fell. On 3/7/23 at 2:15 PM, V4 (CNA) said, I was not here when R27 fell. But I know that when she is eating we have to raise the bed up and move the fall mat away. We do not usually stay in the room with her when she is eating. The purpose of the fall mat is to prevent her from hitting the floor if she has a fall. On 3/8/23 at 8:56 AM, V5 (Registered Nurse) said, prior to R27's last fall her bed was in the middle of the room and she was supposed to have a big fall mat down on the left side of her bed. We do have to move the mattress away when she eats and raise her bed to be able to get the bedside table underneath the bed. On 3/8/23 at 9:28 AM, V6 CNA said, The day that R27 fell she was confused and agitated and the lab had been in to draw blood. I took R27 her dinner tray and I did not stay with her, I would just go check in on her every 30 minutes or so. On one of the checks I found R27 on the floor on the left side of her bed. We do have to raise her bed to get the overbed table underneath and pull her fall mat away. R27's bed at the time of the fall was in the center of the room. There was 1 fall mat for the left side of her bed that was pulled away and was not right next to her bed. On 3/8/23 at 10:37 AM, V8 (R27's physician) said, This type of an injury a femur fracture and a dislocated knee is consistent with a fall yes. I would think had the large fall mat had been down it would have minimized the extent of the injury from the fall. I think the fall interventions do need to be followed. The facility provided policy titled Assessment, Documentation, and Care Planning for HC Residents at Risk for Falls or Who Have Fallen with a revised date of 1/24/23 states, Fall prevention interventions will be developed, documented in the care plan, communicated to involved staff, and implemented based upon the assessment of resident- specific risk factors for falls.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

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 the discharge process was completed for a resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the discharge process was completed for a resident who left against medical advice for 1 of 2 residents (R42) reviewed for discharge in the sample of 13. The findings include: On 3/8/23 at 9:30 AM, R42 was not observed in the facility. R42's Progress Note dated 12/15/22 shows admitted [AGE] year old female from hospital brought in by family in wheelchair with diagnosis of urinary tract infection, possible pneumonia, dementia with history of hypertension, heart murmur. There are no other progress notes in R42's electronic medical record. The facility census dated 3/6/23 does not contain R42. On 03/08/23 at 9:40 AM, V2 Director of Nursing (DON) stated I'm not sure what happened to R42. I will have to ask the admitting nurse. R42 is not here currently. R42's Face sheet dated 3/8/23 shows R42 was admitted [DATE] at 2:24 PM and then discharged [DATE] at 5:00 PM. On 03/08/23 at 9:54 AM, V2 said he spoke with V5 Registered Nurse who admitted R42, and after hour or so of being at the facility, the resident wanted to go home. V2 said R42 was very alert and her family wanted her to stay and she wanted to go home. V2 said V5 reported to him R42 left with family. V2 said V5 thought because she didn't finish the admission she didn't have to complete notes. On 03/08/23 at 10:07 AM, V5 stated R42 didn't want to be admitted and didn't want to stay. I started the admission and she said she didn't want to be in the nursing home. I didn't have her sign any papers. I don't recall how she left and I don't recall giving her any papers from the hospital or any discharge papers. I went into the room to finish her admission and she didn't want to stay so they left. I can't recall how long she was here before leaving. On 03/08/23 at 11:03 AM, V2 stated I would expect the nurse to have an Against Medical Advice form (AMA) signed by resident. The nurse should have documented everything in the progress note including the resident refusal to sign paperwork, how the resident left and with whom, what paperwork was sent with the resident, and the condition of the resident. V5 should have notified myself or the Assistant Director of Nursing and the doctor. This should be documented as well. The facility's Discharge of a Resident Against Medical Advice Policy dated 7/4/22 shows Any resident who communicated intent to leave the healthcare center AMA .notify the attending physician and social services .inform interdisciplinary staff of resident's discharge documents resident's.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

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 residents insulin vial was stored with open/e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a residents insulin vial was stored with open/expiration dates for 1 of 13 residents (R146) reviewed for medication storage in sample of 13. The findings include: R146's Face Sheet printed on 3/7/23 showed R146 to be an [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility with diagnoses which include: disease of pancreas and type 2 diabetes mellitus. R146's Physician Order Sheet printed 3/7/23 showed R146 having a short acting insulin order for 6 units three times a day in addition to a sliding scale dose before meals. On 3/6/23 at 11:45 AM, V5 Registered Nurse (RN) opened the med cart. R146's vial of short acting insulin was opened with no open date or expiration date written on the vial or the storage bag. V5 stated the nurse who opened the vial should have put an open and expiration date on the vial. The expiration date is 28 days after opening for insulin. On 3/8/23 at 11:25 AM, V10 Nursing Supervisor (RN) stated when an insulin vial is opened the nurse needs to put an open and expiration date (28 days later) on the vial. The facility's Medication Storage Policy dated 3/2021 showed when a medication's vial is opened it needs to be labeled with an open and expiration date per manufactured recommendations to ensure the medication is still viable.
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.
  • • 35% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 9 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 Lake Forest Place's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LAKE FOREST PLACE 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 Lake Forest Place Staffed?

CMS rates LAKE FOREST PLACE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lake Forest Place?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at LAKE FOREST PLACE during 2023 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 8 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Lake Forest Place?

LAKE FOREST PLACE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 50 certified beds and approximately 46 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LAKE FOREST, Illinois.

How Does Lake Forest Place Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, LAKE FOREST PLACE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lake Forest Place?

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 Lake Forest Place Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LAKE FOREST PLACE 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 Lake Forest Place Stick Around?

LAKE FOREST PLACE has a staff turnover rate of 35%, 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 Lake Forest Place Ever Fined?

LAKE FOREST PLACE 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 Lake Forest Place on Any Federal Watch List?

LAKE FOREST PLACE 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.