VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Village at Victory Lakes in Lindenhurst, Illinois, has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #89 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, placing it in the top half, and #4 out of 24 in Lake County, so there are only three local options that are better. The facility is showing an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 12 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 40%, which is below the state average of 46%. However, the facility has incurred $46,643 in fines, indicating some compliance issues. Additionally, there is good RN coverage, exceeding that of 90% of state facilities, which helps ensure better monitoring of residents’ health. On the downside, there have been serious incidents reported, including a resident with an open pressure ulcer that went without proper dressing and another resident who was not adequately supervised during meals, increasing their risk of choking. There was also a failure to identify a stage 3 pressure injury for a resident until it became severe. These findings highlight areas needing attention, even as the facility works on improving its overall care.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Illinois
- #89/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% turnover. Near Illinois's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $46,643 in fines. Lower than most Illinois facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 80 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
- 25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (40%)
8 points below Illinois average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
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 25 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
4 deficiencies
1 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
3. R135's face sheets shows he has diagnosis including respiratory failure, dehydration, emphysema, urine retention, and protein calorie malnutrition.
On 1/27/25 at 9:43 AM, R135 was observed lying i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide a resident with the bed hold policy when transferring a resident to a hospital for 1 of 2 residents (R23) reviewed for transfers in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 R36 and R54's PASRR-Preadmission, Screening & Resident Review...
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
4. On 1/27/25 at 9:43 AM, V8 (CNA) provided incontinence care to R135. R135's incontinent brief was soiled with stool. V8 cleansed his buttocks, and used the same contaminated gloves and touched multi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
11 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** 2. R5's care plan dated 11/20/23 showed R4 was at risk for choking or aspiration due to her diagnoses of dysphagia and dementia....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident bed had side rails for bed mobility for 1 of 18 residents (R34) reviewed for accommodation of need in the sam...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0559
(Tag F0559)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide a written notice of a room change, with rationale, to a resident prior to the resident's room change for 2 of 2 residents (R34 and R...
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 restorative services to residents with limited ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 report a resident's decreased oral intake and failed to identify a r...
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 ensure residents were free from medication errors. There were 29 opportunities with 2 errors resulting in a 6.9% medication err...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 2/6/24 at 8:51 AM, V19 and V20 both (Licensed Practical Nurses/LPNs) were observed together passing morning medication. V2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0825
(Tag F0825)
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 specialized rehabilitation services, including speech therap...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 2/5/24 at 10:25 AM, R34 said he has a new sore on his heel that has been there since last week. R34 said he wears heel pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation interview and record review the facility failed to serve residents the right amount of food to 4 of 4 residents on pureed diets (R38, R433, R62, R12) reviewed for nutritional need...
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 ensure glucometer machines were cleaned in between resident use and failed to ensure Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was wo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
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 assess and identify a resident's pressure injury to h...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
8 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services by not reporti...
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 ensure pressure injury interventions and treatments wer...
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 ensure fall prevention interventions were in place by ...
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 appropriate treatment and services were provide...
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 ensure prescription medications were administered according to standards of practice for 1 of 20 residents (R353) reviewed for ...
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 provide incontinence care and nail care to residents wh...
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** 3. On 4/5/2023, R50's admission Record showed R50 is an [AGE] year-old female resident with a diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemipa...
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** 3. On 4/3/2023 at 12:15PM, V11 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was observed touching R64's hat and clothing. V11 immediately w...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure skin wound treatment orders were placed on a residents treatm...
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
- • 40% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s), $46,643 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $46,643 in fines. Higher than 94% of Illinois facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
About This Facility
What is Village At Victory Lakes, The's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE 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 Village At Victory Lakes, The Staffed?
CMS rates VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Village At Victory Lakes, The?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 22 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Village At Victory Lakes, The?
VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by FRANCISCAN COMMUNITIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 90 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in LINDENHURST, Illinois.
How Does Village At Victory Lakes, The Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Village At Victory Lakes, The?
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 Village At Victory Lakes, The Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE 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 Village At Victory Lakes, The Stick Around?
VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Village At Victory Lakes, The Ever Fined?
VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE has been fined $46,643 across 2 penalty actions. The Illinois average is $33,545. 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 Village At Victory Lakes, The on Any Federal Watch List?
VILLAGE AT VICTORY LAKES, THE 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.