MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Mount Vernon Countryside Manor has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #386 out of 665 facilities in Illinois places it in the bottom half, and it is #2 out of 4 in Jefferson County, meaning only one local option is better. While the facility is showing improvement, reducing issues from 11 in 2024 to 5 in 2025, staffing remains a concern with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a 48% turnover rate, which is about average for the state. The facility has also accrued $156,553 in fines, which is higher than 83% of Illinois facilities, indicating repeated compliance problems. There are serious and concerning incidents reported, such as a resident experiencing significant weight loss due to inadequate nutritional care and another resident who faced delays in treatment for a urinary tract infection. Furthermore, the facility has failed to properly use PPE when interacting with COVID-positive residents, posing a risk to all 74 residents. While there are some strengths, such as an average health inspection rating, the overall picture suggests that families should carefully consider these issues when researching care options.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Illinois
- #386/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $156,553 in fines. Lower than most Illinois facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 18 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Illinois. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 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
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Illinois average (2.5)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
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 18 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to utilize PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) per CDC (Centers for Disease Control) guidelines when coming in contact with Covi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
4 deficiencies
1 Harm
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 interview and record review the facility failed to implement dietary supplements as ordered for 4 (R39, R44, R45 and R6...
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 interview and record review the facility failed to maintain range of motion for 1 (R25) of 1 resident reviewed for decr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
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 were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0808
(Tag F0808)
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 the correct physician's ordered diet and diet...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
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 an allegation of abuse to the Illinois Department of Public ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate and conduct a thorough investigation of an allegation of a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
7 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide timely physician notification of symptoms of a urinary infection and timely collection of specimens for 1 (R22) of 1 resident revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure comprehensive assessments were completed timely for 1 of 1 (R30) resident reviewed for comprehensive assessments in a sample of 60.
T...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure quarterly assessments were completed timely for 4 of 4 (R5, R32, R38 and R43) residents reviewed for quarterly assessments in a sampl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) Level II Screening for 4 (R73, R45, R20, R50) of 4 residents reviewed for PA...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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 date insulin pens when opened for use and ensure disco...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0680
(Tag F0680)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the Activity Director had the appropriate qualification to conduct the activity program of the facility. This has the potential to affec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to properly store and label food items, failed to maintain the ice machine in a safe and sanitary manner and failed to prevent pot...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide timely ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care ...
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
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient staffing levels to provide care by...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
2 deficiencies
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 interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement individualized, resident centered intervention...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary environment. This has th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), $156,553 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $156,553 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Illinois. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (30/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Mount Vernon Countryside Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR 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 Mount Vernon Countryside Manor Staffed?
CMS rates MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Mount Vernon Countryside Manor?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 16 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Mount Vernon Countryside Manor?
MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR 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 PALLADIAN HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 91 certified beds and approximately 77 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MOUNT VERNON, Illinois.
How Does Mount Vernon Countryside Manor Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mount Vernon Countryside Manor?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Mount Vernon Countryside Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR 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 Mount Vernon Countryside Manor Stick Around?
MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR has a staff turnover rate of 48%, 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 Mount Vernon Countryside Manor Ever Fined?
MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR has been fined $156,553 across 4 penalty actions. This is 4.5x the Illinois average of $34,644. 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 Mount Vernon Countryside Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
MOUNT VERNON COUNTRYSIDE MANOR 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.