Goldwater Care Roseville
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Goldwater Care Roseville has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided, which is considered poor. It ranks #537 out of 665 nursing homes in Illinois, placing it in the bottom half of all facilities in the state, and #2 out of 2 in Warren County, meaning only one other local option is available that may be better. The facility is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 12 in 2024 to 14 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 53%, which is average for Illinois, meaning staff may not be familiar with the residents. The facility has faced fines totaling $64,201, which is average, but there are critical incidents that raise alarms, such as a resident experiencing chest pain for over two hours without a working call system to alert staff, and multiple residents feeling unsafe due to a malfunctioning nurse call system in their bathrooms. Overall, while there are some average staffing levels, the critical issues regarding resident safety and care cannot be overlooked.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Illinois
- #537/665
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $64,201 in fines. Higher than 75% of Illinois facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Illinois. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 39 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
Near Illinois avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
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 39 deficiencies on record
Sept 2025
4 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL
(L)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to successfully develop a plan and implement an accessibl...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the cooling/heating vent located in the dining room was free of debris, and residents' bathroom walls, cove base, caulk...
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 F0944
(Tag F0944)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) training to all employees. This failure has the potential to affect all 40 resi...
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 F0946
(Tag F0946)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide training regarding the facility's Compliance and Ethics Program to all employees. This failure has the potential to affect all 40 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2025
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(H)
📢 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 F0919
(Tag F0919)
A resident was harmed · 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 provide a functioning nurse call system in resident bat...
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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide a functioning bathroom nurse call light system. This failure has the potential to affect all 44 current facility reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to obtain a Level Two PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) for one resident (R12) of three residents reviewed for PASRR in a tota...
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
**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 indwelling urinary catheter remo...
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
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to weigh one resident as recommended (R8) of three residents reviewed for weight loss in a total sample of 28.
Findings Include:
The Facility...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide an appropriate indication for use of antipsych...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to initiate and follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions for o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to assess for the risk of entrapment from side rails for five residents (R3, R8, R11, R31 and R38) of thirteen residents reviewed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
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
Based on interview, observation, and record review the facility failed to report alleged verbal, mental, and physical abuse to the State Agency for one of three residents (R3) reviewed for abuse in th...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to investigate allegations of potential physical, mental, and verbal abuse and ensure the alleged victim was protected from further abuse dur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
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 perform a PASARR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) leve...
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
3. R35's Care plan, dated 8/7/2023, documents the following: R35 has a noted stage 2 (pressure ulcer) to right gluteal fold, measures 2.5 centimeters (cm) x 1.5cm x 0.2cm.
R35's Treatment sheet, dated...
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** 3. On 4/15/24 at 11:08 AM, R23 was in her room lying in bed. R23's high-back wheelchair was placed next to her bed and a mechani...
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 ensure an indwelling urinary catheter was secured with a securement device for one of three residents (R33) reviewed for indwe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a dementia plan of care for one of three residents (R32) reviewed for dementia care, in the sample of 20.
Findings Include:
R32's ...
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the physician evaluated and documented the rationale for the continued use of a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0773
(Tag F0773)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were implemented for laboratory tests for one of one resident (R33) reviewed for Insulin in the sample of 20.
Findi...
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 facility staff had hair and facial hair fully restrained during food production and clean-up activities. This failure h...
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
4. R42's Physician Order Sheet, dated 4/15/24, documents R42 has an order for 20 French suprapubic catheter (urinary) 25 milliliter balloon. Change monthly and as needed one time a day every one month...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on Interview and Record Review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of twelve hours of nurse aide training over a twelve month period. This failure has the potential to affect all 43 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0568
(Tag F0568)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a quarterly statement of the resident's financial record was provided. This failure has the potential to affect all 43 residents cur...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the results of any surveys, certifications, and complaint investigations conducted during the past three years were av...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · 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 a vulnerable resident (R1) from physical abuse that resulted...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
4 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
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 monitor weights upon admission, complete physician or...
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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise a care plan to include what size/type of gastrostomy tube (g-tube) a resident has and what to do if a gastrostomy tube...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record, the facility failed to provide hygiene cares to residents dependent on staff assistance for two of four residents (R1, R4) reviewed for ADL (Activities of ...
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
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 provide a gastrostomy tube feeding as ordered by the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
8 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
Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's toileting preferences were met for one of 16 residents (R34) reviewed for accommodation of needs in the sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 accurately assess and document a resident's skin condition on the R...
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 and record review, the facility failed to update a plan of care to include fall interventions for one resident (R13) of three residents reviewed for falls, in sample of 25.
FINDINGS...
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** 3. The facility Wound Care policy, dated 3/16/2023, documents, Policy: To avoid introducing organisms into a wound. Procedure: 8...
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
Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range of motion was provided appropriate treatment and services to maintain and/or prevent a fu...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the placement and function of a physician ordered fall intervention for one of three residents (R13) reviewed for falls, in a sample...
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 a clinical rationale for duplicative antidepressant therapy for one of three residents (R34) reviewed for psychotropic medications...
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
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 the kitchen ceiling was kept clean, dry and without damage, a ceiling exhaust vent was cleaned and without debris and t...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $64,201 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 39 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $64,201 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Illinois. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Goldwater Care Roseville's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Goldwater Care Roseville 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 Goldwater Care Roseville Staffed?
CMS rates Goldwater Care Roseville's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Goldwater Care Roseville?
State health inspectors documented 39 deficiencies at Goldwater Care Roseville during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 33 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Goldwater Care Roseville?
Goldwater Care Roseville 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 GOLDWATER CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 45 residents (about 45% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ROSEVILLE, Illinois.
How Does Goldwater Care Roseville Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, Goldwater Care Roseville's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Goldwater Care Roseville?
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 Goldwater Care Roseville Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Goldwater Care Roseville has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 Goldwater Care Roseville Stick Around?
Goldwater Care Roseville has a staff turnover rate of 53%, which is 7 percentage points above the Illinois average of 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 Goldwater Care Roseville Ever Fined?
Goldwater Care Roseville has been fined $64,201 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Illinois average of $33,721. 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 Goldwater Care Roseville on Any Federal Watch List?
Goldwater Care Roseville 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.