TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Twin Lakes Extended Care in Paris, Illinois, has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a good option for families seeking care, though not without some concerns. It ranks #86 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, placing it in the top half, and #1 out of 3 in Edgar County, making it the best local option available. The facility is improving, having reduced the number of issues from 6 in 2023 to 5 in 2024. However, staffing is a weakness, with only 2 out of 5 stars, although their turnover rate of 37% is better than the state average of 46%. Concerns include $71,455 in fines, which is higher than 75% of Illinois facilities, and issues such as improper sanitation of serving utensils and insufficient room sizes for residents, which could affect comfort and safety. Additionally, there have been lapses in meeting the required eight hours of Registered Nurse coverage, which could impact the quality of care residents receive.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Illinois
- #86/665
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 37% turnover. Near Illinois's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $71,455 in fines. Lower than most Illinois facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Illinois. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 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 (37%)
11 points below Illinois average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well 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 19 deficiencies on record
Jun 2024
5 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to protect a resident's right to dignity for two of two re...
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 implement interventions in response to signs and symptoms of shortness of breath for a resident and ensure respiratory tubing i...
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
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to document psychotropic medication assessments, identify and track targeted behaviors, and attempt non-pharmacological behavioral intervention...
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 dispose of expired schedule two narcotics for one (R6) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide at least 80 square feet of floor space per resident bed in 28 of 56 resident rooms at the facility, 28 of these rooms...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
6 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 interview and record review the facility failed to complete wound treatments for one of four residents (R5) reviewed fo...
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 transcribe physician orders and complete wound treatmen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3.) R16's Physician Progress Note dated 5/3/23 documents Chief complaint/Reason for visit: Wound on Left Knee. Diagnosis: Pressure Ulcer. Assessment and Plan: Recommend bordered foam to area to avoid ...
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 maintain proper sanitation of serving utensils. This failure has the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in facility....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide bedrooms that measure at least 80 square feet per resident bed for 28 resident rooms 2,4-11, and 14-32.
Findings inclu...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to deliver mail to residents on Saturdays. This failure has the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility.
Findings includ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop a care plan for anticoagulant use for one (R11) of 20 residents reviewed for care plans in the sample list of 20.
Findings include:...
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to administer a nutritional supplement and accurately asse...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record the facility failed to safely install side rails for two residents (R18, R22) of seve...
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
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to identify specific behaviors and targeted nonpharmacological interventions to warrant the use of psychotropic medications and failed to compl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to notify the physician of low blood sugar and that insulin was not administered for one (R28) of five residents reviewed for unn...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to conduct periodic safety inspections of side rails in use for six residents (R20, R11, R184, R19, R22, and R28) of seven residen...
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 and record review, the facility failed to provide the required eight hours of Registered Nurse staffing coverage per 24-hour period for three of fifteen days reviewed for staffing. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post required nursing staffing information. This failure has the potential to affect all 33 residents in the facility.
Findi...
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
- • 37% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • $71,455 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Illinois. Major compliance failures.
About This Facility
What is Twin Lakes Extended Care's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE 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 Twin Lakes Extended Care Staffed?
CMS rates TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Twin Lakes Extended Care?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE during 2022 to 2024. These included: 16 with potential for harm and 3 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Twin Lakes Extended Care?
TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE 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 STERN CONSULTANTS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 56 certified beds and approximately 34 residents (about 61% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PARIS, Illinois.
How Does Twin Lakes Extended Care Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Twin Lakes Extended Care?
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 Twin Lakes Extended Care Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE 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 Twin Lakes Extended Care Stick Around?
TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE has a staff turnover rate of 37%, 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 Twin Lakes Extended Care Ever Fined?
TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE has been fined $71,455 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Illinois average of $33,793. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Twin Lakes Extended Care on Any Federal Watch List?
TWIN LAKES EXTENDED CARE 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.