ARISTA HEALTHCARE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Arista Healthcare in Naperville, Illinois, has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families considering a nursing home, though there may be areas for improvement. The facility ranks #109 out of 665 in Illinois, placing it in the top half, and #8 out of 38 in Du Page County, meaning only seven local options are rated better. However, the trend is concerning as the number of issues reported has worsened from 6 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a mixed bag here, with a 2/5 rating and a 33% turnover rate, which is below the state average, suggesting some stability among staff despite overall low ratings. Notably, the facility has not faced any fines, which is a positive sign. However, there are several concerning incidents, such as food items not being properly labeled or dated, expired food not being removed, and staff failing to perform proper hand hygiene, which raises questions about infection control practices. While the facility has some strengths, particularly regarding fines and turnover, the issues reported warrant careful consideration.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Illinois
- #109/665
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 33% 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 ○ Average
- Each resident gets 39 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Illinois. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (33%)
15 points below Illinois average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
13pts below Illinois avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene, and did not use PPE (Perso...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care with dignity to 3 of 3 residents (R12, R56, R22) reviewed for dignity in a sample of 25.
The findings include:
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The clinical records of R37 showed that diagnoses included cirrhosis of the liver, hemiplegia, type 2 diabetes, urinary tract...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The clinical records of R37 showed that diagnoses included cirrhosis of the liver, hemiplegia, type 2 diabetes, urinary tract...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess and provide necessary treatments and services ...
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 provide restorative therapy services as care planned. This applies ...
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
2. R56's electronic health record showed that R56's has diagnoses including history of UTI (urinary tract infection), anemia, adult failure to thrive, malnutrition, and is under Hospice care at the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow standard infection control practices with regards to hand hygiene. This applies to 2 of 7 residents (R9, R12) reviewed...
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 label/date/store food items and scoops, remove expired items, clean walk-in cooler, and wear hair restraint while se...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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** 2) R58's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) showed R58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including ch...
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 follow manufacturer's instructions for a pressure redu...
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 provide specialized cup for drinking for residents tha...
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** 3) On [DATE], at 5:05 PM, V5 (RN) prepared and administered R87's scheduled medications via gastrostomy tube. V5 prepared the fo...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to store medications in accordance with manufacturer guidelines. This applies to 5 of 5 (R9, R11, R13, R35 and R39) residents in a...
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 portions of chicken nuggets and diced pork as shown on the menu spreadsheet. This applies to 8 of 8 residents (R21, R30,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Per MDS dated [DATE], R61's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 6, indicating severely impaired cognition. R61...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to verify gastrostomy tube (G-tube) placement prior to administering medications through the G-tube. This applies to 1 of 1 resid...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. R63 is a sixty-four-year-old male with a primary diagnosis of early onset Alzheimer's Disease. R63 is cognitively intact with...
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 label all stored food items and remove expired food items. This applies to all residents that receive oral nutrition and food...
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
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
- • 33% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Arista Healthcare's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ARISTA HEALTHCARE an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Arista Healthcare Staffed?
CMS rates ARISTA HEALTHCARE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 33%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Arista Healthcare?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at ARISTA HEALTHCARE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 19 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Arista Healthcare?
ARISTA HEALTHCARE 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 153 certified beds and approximately 92 residents (about 60% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in NAPERVILLE, Illinois.
How Does Arista Healthcare Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, ARISTA HEALTHCARE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (33%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Arista Healthcare?
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 Arista Healthcare Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ARISTA HEALTHCARE 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 4-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 Arista Healthcare Stick Around?
ARISTA HEALTHCARE has a staff turnover rate of 33%, 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 Arista Healthcare Ever Fined?
ARISTA HEALTHCARE 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 Arista Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?
ARISTA HEALTHCARE 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.