ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Allure of Prophetstown has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #316 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, they are in the top half but still have many areas needing improvement. The facility is showing signs of improvement, with issues decreasing from 16 in 2023 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is a weakness, as they earned only 2 out of 5 stars and have a 44% turnover rate, which is slightly below the state average. On the downside, there were serious incidents reported, including a failure to safely transfer a resident, leading to potential injury, and a lack of proper infection control measures that resulted in multiple residents contracting respiratory illnesses and COVID-19.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Illinois
- #316/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Illinois's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $45,133 in fines. Higher than 65% of Illinois facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Illinois. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 29 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
Below Illinois average (2.5)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
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 29 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
8 deficiencies
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 identify, assess, and implement treatment for a pressu...
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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident's splints were applied to bilateral ...
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 ensure a resident received ice cream as ordered for 1 ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the placement of a feeding tube was checked pri...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident's bilateral under arm pain was assessed, the physician notified, and treatment interventions implemented for...
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** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure water temperatures in resident bathrooms were m...
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 follow the pureed menu for 6 of 6 residents (R4, R6, R11, R23, R43 and R51) reviewed for dietary services in the sample of 17....
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 ensure multidose medication vials were marked with expiration dates after opening which applies to 58 residents in the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
2 deficiencies
1 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
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 transfer a resident in a safe manner, failed to follow ...
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
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 document a resident fall and assessment for 1 of 3 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to report an allegation of Abuse within 24 hours to the state agency. This applies to 1 of 5 residents (R9) reviewed for abuse in the sample of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
10 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have a system in place to track or trend illnesses, failed to have a process in place to identify contagious residents, and f...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** 2. R1's face sheet showed an [AGE] year-old female with diagnosis of mild protein calorie malnutrition. asthma, chronic obstruct...
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 have a dressing in place over a recent surgical wound...
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** 2. R166's face sheet showed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility 8/24/23 with diagnosis of dementia, history of fal...
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 implement interventions to prevent a resident from fal...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's oxygen tubing was changed weekly ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
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 administer immunizations for residents who requested them for 2 of ...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare and serve pureed foods per the recipe guidelines for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for pureed foods. This applies to 2 re...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the services of a dietary manager. This has the potential to affect all residents in the building.
The 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food storage and preparation areas were clean and free of insects. This applies to all residents in the facility.
The ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
3 deficiencies
3 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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 assess, monitor, and document the assessments on 1 of ...
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
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
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 resident with dementia, wandering and aggress...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
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 have physician documentation with the reasons for a res...
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
Safe Transfer
(Tag F0626)
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 allow a resident to return to the facility following ho...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2022
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
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 a resident for self-administering medication pri...
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 identify pressure injuries prior to becoming a Stage ...
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 prepare and deliver food in a sanitary manner.
This applies to all residents in the facility.
The findings include:
The Center...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "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: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 5 harm violation(s), $45,133 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 29 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $45,133 in fines. Higher than 94% of Illinois facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (8/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Allure Of Prophetstown's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN 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 Allure Of Prophetstown Staffed?
CMS rates ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN'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 Allure Of Prophetstown?
State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 5 that caused actual resident harm, and 23 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Allure Of Prophetstown?
ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN 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 ALLURE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 70 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PROPHETSTOWN, Illinois.
How Does Allure Of Prophetstown Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN's overall rating (2 stars) is below 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 Allure Of Prophetstown?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Allure Of Prophetstown Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Illinois. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Allure Of Prophetstown Stick Around?
ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN 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 Allure Of Prophetstown Ever Fined?
ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN has been fined $45,133 across 1 penalty action. The Illinois average is $33,530. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Allure Of Prophetstown on Any Federal Watch List?
ALLURE OF PROPHETSTOWN 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.