ROSE GARDEN OF PANA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Rose Garden of Pana has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided and placing it in the bottom tier of nursing homes. It ranks #620 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, meaning it is in the bottom half of the state, and #3 out of 4 in Christian County, with only one local option considered better. The facility is improving slightly, having reduced the number of issues from 12 in 2023 to 8 in 2024, but it still faces serious challenges. Staffing is a strength here, with a 0% turnover rate, which is well below the state average, but the overall staffing rating is poor and there is concerningly less RN coverage than 97% of other facilities in Illinois. Specific incidents include a resident who required assistance from two staff members but was transferred by one, increasing the risk of falls, and another resident who experienced a delay in treatment for a fracture, which suggests that improvements are still needed in ensuring timely care and safe transfers.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Illinois
- #620/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $124,787 in fines. Lower than most Illinois facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 13 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Illinois. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 25 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)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
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 25 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
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 Medicare written notice regarding the right to an expedited ...
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse for 3 of 3 residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to update R47's care plan with new fall prevention interventions for 1 resident (R47) of 14 residents whose care plans were revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 protect residents' private space from wandering resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. R47's face sheet dated 10/30/24 documented R47 has diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, anxiety disor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews, observations, and record reviews the facility failed to label, date, and dispose of food items stored in the refrigerator and freezer with potential to affect 4 out of 4 residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, observation, and record review the Facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. The facility also failed to employ a Di...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the Facility failed to ensure the daily nursing staff hours were posted and easily visible to residents. This failure has the potential to affect all...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
8 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. R36's face sheet documents that R36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of right hip fracture, C5 compres...
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 interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to identify and treat a pressure ulcer on 1 of 2 residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 the medication refrigerator temperature was mon...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure diet orders prescribed by a physician were followed as well as update/post an accurate menu and for 2 of 5 residents, (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
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 consider individual preferences for 1 of 5 residents (R43) reviewed...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the Facility failed to ensure food items were served at an appetizing tempera...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a Certified Dietary Manager was in place. This has the potential to affect all 51 residents who reside at the facility.
Findings inclu...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the kitchen had labeled and dated opened food a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
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 self-report an allegation of a medication overdose/suicide attempt ...
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 F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, observation and record review the facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. This has the potential to affect all 55 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
2 deficiencies
2 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely treatment for a change in condition for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for quality of care in the sample of 6. This failure r...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
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 provide safe transfers for 2 of 3 residents (R2, R6) r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
5 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, observation and record review, the facility failed to provide supervision, investigate falls thoroughly to d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to employ a Registered Nurse (RN) in the facility for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, or a Director of Nursing since May 2022. This ...
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 interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to wash hands, wear a hair net properly and store dry goods in a sanitary manner. This failure has the potential to affect all 39...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
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 interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene, wear protective eyewear, and wear mask correctly to prevent/control the spread of COVID-19 and other inf...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0886
(Tag F0886)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed perform twice a week COVID19 testing of staff for who are not up to date with their COVID19 vaccinations and staff who have an exemption. This...
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: 4 harm violation(s), $124,787 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 4 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $124,787 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Illinois. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (5/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Rose Garden Of Pana's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ROSE GARDEN OF PANA an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Rose Garden Of Pana Staffed?
CMS rates ROSE GARDEN OF PANA's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Rose Garden Of Pana?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at ROSE GARDEN OF PANA during 2022 to 2024. These included: 4 that caused actual resident harm and 21 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Rose Garden Of Pana?
ROSE GARDEN OF PANA 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 POINTE MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 105 certified beds and approximately 70 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PANA, Illinois.
How Does Rose Garden Of Pana Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, ROSE GARDEN OF PANA's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5 and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Rose Garden Of Pana?
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 Rose Garden Of Pana Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ROSE GARDEN OF PANA 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 1-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 Rose Garden Of Pana Stick Around?
ROSE GARDEN OF PANA has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Rose Garden Of Pana Ever Fined?
ROSE GARDEN OF PANA has been fined $124,787 across 2 penalty actions. This is 3.6x the Illinois average of $34,327. 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 Rose Garden Of Pana on Any Federal Watch List?
ROSE GARDEN OF PANA 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.