HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Heartland Senior Living in Neoga, Illinois, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility. Ranking #248 out of 665 in Illinois places it in the top half of state facilities, and as #1 of 2 in Cumberland County means it is the best local option, but the overall score raises concerns. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 10 in 2023 to 8 in 2024; however, there are still serious staffing challenges, reflected in a 2/5 staffing rating and a turnover rate of 44%, which is slightly below the state average. Additionally, the facility has incurred $120,430 in fines, which is higher than 82% of facilities in the state, suggesting repeated compliance problems. Specific incidents have included failing to prevent pressure injuries for multiple residents and unsafe mechanical lift transfers, leading to skin tears and worsened conditions for some individuals, highlighting both serious care deficiencies and the need for improvement.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Illinois
- #248/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Illinois's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $120,430 in fines. Higher than 76% of Illinois facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Illinois. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 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 (44%)
4 points below Illinois average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Illinois average (2.5)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Jul 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to follow physician orders for one (R10) of three residents reviewed for medication administration from a total sample list of 11 residents.
Fi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
7 deficiencies
2 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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide ordered interventions to prevent the development of deep tissue injuries and worsening of a pressure injury and failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to prevent injuries from multiple mechanical lift transfer...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to obtain a consent to administer a psychotropic medication for one (R10) of five residents reviewed for psychotropic medications from a total ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 physical abuse to the Abuse Coordinator for ...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain a urinary catheter in a safe, sanitary, and dignified manner for one resident (R38) of four residents reviewed for ca...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0694
(Tag F0694)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to properly administer intravenous medication to prevent infection for one (R316) of one residents reviewed for intravenous medica...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident had an order for the use of oxygen and failed to ensure oxygen/nebulizer tubing/equipment was changed accordi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 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
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
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 protect the resident's right to be informed of and participate in th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
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 test all staff that were in close contact with a COVID-19 positive resident and failed to post isolation signage immediately on...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
8 deficiencies
3 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe transfer and implement a pressure relie...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent a fall for one (R18) of five residents reviewed for accidents on the sample list of 39. This failure resulted in R18 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 protect the resident's rights to be free from physic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to serve palatable food. This failure affects one resident (R11) of 24 reviewed for palatable food in the sample list of 39.
Findings include:
O...
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
B. On 5/16/23 at 8:20AM, V3 (LPN) provided medications to R53. V3 LPN did not use hand hygiene prior to administering medications, nor after the medications had been administered.
On 5/16/23 at 8:29A...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their Controlled Substance Storage policy by failing to maintain possession of the keys to medication/narcotic storage...
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 prevent the potential for physical cross-contamination of food. This failure has the potential to affect all 61 residents in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2022
6 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe environment free of tripping and poo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to consult V8 (Medical Director) regarding dietary recommendations and failed to notify V8 of weight loss for two of three residents (R15, R37)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement the facility Antibiotic Stewardship policy to prevent the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to conduct psychotropic medication assessments for R3 and failed to ensure the use of an as needed anxiolytic medication did not exceed the max...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly store controlled substance medication in a p...
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 record review, observation and interview the facility failed to hold and serve hot TCS (Time/Temperature Control for Safety) food at proper temperature and failed to prevent cross contaminati...
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
- • 44% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 6 harm violation(s), $120,430 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 24 deficiencies on record, including 6 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $120,430 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Illinois. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (15/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Heartland Senior Living's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Illinois, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Heartland Senior Living Staffed?
CMS rates HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Heartland Senior Living?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING during 2022 to 2024. These included: 6 that caused actual resident harm and 18 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Heartland Senior Living?
HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 71 certified beds and approximately 60 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in NEOGA, Illinois.
How Does Heartland Senior Living Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Heartland Senior Living?
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 Heartland Senior Living Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING 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 3-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 Heartland Senior Living Stick Around?
HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Heartland Senior Living Ever Fined?
HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING has been fined $120,430 across 4 penalty actions. This is 3.5x the Illinois average of $34,283. 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 Heartland Senior Living on Any Federal Watch List?
HEARTLAND SENIOR LIVING 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.