AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY

3900 SOUTH OAK PARK AVENUE, STICKNEY, IL 60402 (708) 484-7543
For profit - Corporation 51 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
60/100
#202 of 665 in IL
Last Inspection: May 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

AHVA Care of Stickney has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is decent and slightly above average among nursing homes. Ranked #202 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, they are in the top half, while locally they hold the #62 position out of 201 in Cook County, meaning only a few options are better. The facility is improving, as the number of issues reported dropped from three in 2024 to one in 2025. However, staffing is a concern with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 57%, significantly higher than the state average of 46%. While they have no fines on record, which is positive, there have been serious incidents, such as a resident falling and suffering facial lacerations due to a cluttered environment, and failures to maintain safety and food service certifications, indicating areas that need attention. Overall, while there are strengths in RN coverage and no fines, the facility has significant weaknesses in staffing and safety practices that families should consider.

Trust Score
C+
60/100
In Illinois
#202/665
Top 30%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
3 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 55 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Illinois. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Illinois average (2.5)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 57%

11pts above Illinois avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Staff turnover is elevated (57%)

9 points above Illinois average of 48%

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jan 2025 1 deficiency 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to follow the plan of care intervention to ensure that the resident'...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to follow the plan of care intervention to ensure that the resident's environment was free of clutter, which is necessary to promote a safe environment. This deficiency affected one of three residents (R4). As a result, R4 rolled from the bed and struck her head on the garbage can, causing facial lacerations that required 8 sutures. Findings include: R4 face sheet shows R4 has diagnoses of unspecified dementia, muscle wasting and atrophy, other abnormalities of gait and mobility, lack of coordination, insomnia. Facility final investigation to the department dated 1/9/25 denotes in-part, fall, R4, alert x/times one. [AGE] year-old, BIMS/Brief Interview for Mental Status) of zero. On 1/5/25 the doctor gave orders to send R4 to the hospital to be examined for a fall. The physician and family were informed. During the final investigation process and medical records review the following facts were determined: On 1/5/25 R4 returned from the hospital with eight stiches to her left eyebrow. During the investigation process R4 roommate informed staff that R4 rolled out of bed onto the floor mat by her bed and somehow hit her head on the trash can by her bed. Facility incident report dated 1/5/25 denotes in-part V2 (Registered Nurse) stated nurse responded to a noise of what sound like a garbage can and upon entry into resident's room the resident was noted lying on the floor mattress with head closest to the head of bed. On 1/15/25 at 1:58pm V3 (CNA- certified Nursing aide) stated R4 was observed on the floor mattress (floor mat) at around 11:00pm or so. V3 stated V3 and V2 (RN) put R4 back in bed. V3 stated R4 brief was dry. V3 stated around 12:30am, R4 was observed on the floor mattress again. V3 stated R4 body was on the floor mattress and R4 head was off the floor mattress on the floor. V3 stated R4 was bleeding from the head/face. V3 stated the garbage can was flipped over by R4's head. V3 stated R4 could have hit her face on the wall socket also. V3 stated the Nurse did not give her any new directives after they picked R4 up from the floor the first time that night. V3 expressed that R4 was not a good fit for that room. V3 stated R4 roommate liked the television loud and the room cold. V3 stated R4 didn't sleep well at night in that room. V3 stated she has mentioned this to the Nurse. V3 stated she (V3) has mentioned that R4 was not a good fit several times. V3 stated she does rounds every two hours maybe every hour usually. V3 stated she has observed R4 on the floor mattress prior to that night. V3 stated R4 is at risk for falls. On 1/15/25 at 4:01pm V2 (RN) stated R4 was removed from the floor mattress prior to being observed on the floor mattress bleeding from the head. V2 stated the first time they (V2 and V3) put R4 back in the bed, the interventions were to check to see if R4 was wet and R4 was dry. V2 stated then put R4 back in bed. V2 stated R4 is rounded on every 1 to 2 hours. V2 stated she did not give V3 any further directives for R4 at that time of the first fall. V2 stated she did not recognize R4 first incident as a fall as R4 was having behaviors. V2 stated she did not contact anyone for directives when R4 was having behaviors. V2 stated the second incident is when she heard noise of a garbage can, as she went to investigate, R4 roommate put the call light on and stated R4 was doing something with the garbage can. V2 stated R4 was observed on the floor mattress bleeding from the head/face. V2 stated she rendered first aid; she V2 observed a laceration above R4 left eyebrow and a laceration under the left eye. V2 stated the garbage can was by R4s head. V2 stated she was not in the room so she can't say what happened. V2 denied knowing about R4 roommate keeping the room too cold and the television too loud for R4 to sleep. V2 stated R4 roommate does like to keep her fan on in the room. V2 stated she can't discern what is considered a loud TV. V2 stated R4 didn't sleep well at night but she administered melatonin to R4. V2 stated the melatonin only worked a few hours for R4. V2 stated she endorsed in the past for the nurse to inform the provider that the melatonin only worked for a few hours for R4. V2 stated she doesn't know if the Nurse reported to the Physician/Nurse practitioner. R4 progress notes dated 1/5/25 denotes in-part unwitnessed fall event. Writer observed resident lying on her left side on floor mattress at bedside. Left side of face bleeding with open areas x2. Resident noted awake and alert, at baseline. Pressure applied, sites cleaned, and dry dressings applied. Resident was assisted back into bed with staff assist x2. Head to toe assessment performed. No other visual injuries noted. Neuro (neurological) check performed. ROM (range of motion) to all extremities at baseline. Resident has Dx (diagnosis): Dementia, unable to state how fall occurred. Vitals: T(temperature) 97.6, R (respirations) 20. Unable to obtain B/P (blood pressure, pulse, and SPO2 because resident did not remain still long enough for an accurate reading. On call DON (Director of Nursing) made aware. V4 (Physician) made aware, awaiting MD (medical doctor) response. Attempt to make son aware, no answer. Left message to contact facility. Call to 911 to send resident to (hospital name) Hospital per facility protocol. On 1/15/24 at 3:00pm V5 (Director of Nursing) stated the first incident of R4 observed on the floor mat (full size mattress) was a fall. V5 stated the nurse failed to recognize that R4 had a fall. V5 stated V2 did not inform her that R4 had a fall or that R4 was experiencing behaviors prior to being observed bleeding from head. V5 stated V2 informed her that the garbage can was by R4 head, and that's why she implemented to remove the garbage can from R4's room. V5 stated V2 should have implemented a new intervention for R4 after the first fall that night. V5 stated the nurse should have used nursing judgement to determine an intervention based on what was observed at the time of the fall. V5 stated the Nurse does not have to wait for her directives to implement an intervention, she educated her staff on that. V5 stated she was aware that R4 didn't sleep well at night that's why she got the order for the melatonin. V5 stated she was not aware that the melatonin was only effective for a few hours and that R4 continued to be awake at night. V5 stated she was not aware that R4 roommate was not a good fit for R4 because the room was cold, and the television is loud at night. V5 stated the aide did not make her aware of this allegation/observation. V5 stated R4 floor mat was not the same height as the bed as mentioned by V2. V5 stated R4 did have a fall, it was a change in plane for both incidents. V5 stated she has to educate V2 and V3. V5 stated the nurse informed her that the garbage can was near R4 head and that's she implemented the intervention of removing the garbage can from R4 room. V5 stated she concluded that R4 hit her face/head on the garbage can. R4 plan of care with initiated date of 7/19/2024 denotes in-part the resident has a potential for falls due to current medical condition and confusion, deconditioning, gait/balance problems, poor communication/comprehensive, unaware of safety needs. Actual fall (12/12/24 and 1/5/25). The resident will not sustain serious injury through next review date, target date 1/15/25. Reduce the risk of injury by next review. The resident falls will be minimized. Interventions: anticipate the resident needs, encourage the resident to wait for the staff for assistance before performing any activities of daily living such as transfer, toileting etc. Ensure the resident is wearing appropriate footwear and floor mattress next to the resident bed. Keep bed at the lowest position and keep the floor dry to prevent the resident from slipping. Keep the pathway and resident's environment free from clutter. Keep the resident call light within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. May wear helmet to head PRN (as needed) when restless or agitated, to protect against head injuries as tolerated. Move resident room closer to nurse station. Orient the resident to the environment. Therapy to evaluate and treat as ordered by the physician and no garbage can at the bed side. 1/16/25 at 2:49pm V6 (Administrator) stated R4 fall with injury was an accident. V6 stated he (V6) does not understand how R4 hit her face/head on the garbage can. V6 state he only interviewed the resident during this investigation and that the Director of Nursing interviewed the nurse (V2) and CNA (V3). Upon exit of this survey V6 failed to present further information of how R4 suffered the two lacerations to her face after the fall/accident. Facility falls- (clinical protocol) policy with revised date of March 2020 denotes in-part the staff will evaluate, and document falls that occur while the individual is in the facility, the staff and physician will monitor the resident's response to interventions intended to reduce falling or consequences of falling. If the individual continues to fall, the staff and physician/NP will reevaluate the situation and consider other possible reasons for the residents falling and will reevaluate the continued relevance of current interventions.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 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 multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean environment in good repair for two of three units in the facility. This failure has the potential to affect a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean environment in good repair for two of three units in the facility. This failure has the potential to affect all 16 residents residing on the first floor and all 43 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 9/18/2024 at 9:30AM upon entering the facility for an onsite complaint investigation and walking to the basement with V1 (Administrator), surveyor observed lots of peeling paint on the walls leading to the therapy room and towards the bathroom in the basement. There are also two rusted pipes on the wall with peeling paint and a big hole on the wall leading to the ceiling inside the therapy room. 9/18/2024 at 11:18AM, surveyor conducted observation of the shower room on the first floor with V3 (CNA) and noted a large area with dark materials on the ceiling, the wall was noted to be peeling with holes, and there were patches of peeling paint all over the bathroom wall. V3 stated there is leakage from the second-floor bathroom when they are giving showers, she thinks that is where the dark deposits on the bathroom ceiling is coming from, V3 added that she has not really paid close attention to it, but it does not look good. 9/18/2024 at 12:03PM, V1 (Administrator) stated that the dark area in the ceiling of the first-floor bathroom is not mold, it is caused by leakage from the second-floor bathroom. V1 stated they usually have it (ceiling) painted but have not done so lately. V1 stated the last time fire safety came to the facility, they saw it and gave them verbal instruction to fix it. V1 stated that they are aware of the repairs and paint needed in the facility. V1 stated the owners repaired the roof to prevent leakage all over the facility. V1 stated they are currently dealing with a plumbing problem and the plan is to start with the inside repairs in November. 9/18/2024 at 12:05PM, V6 (Maintenance Director) was showing surveyor the dark deposit area in the first-floor bathroom ceiling, stating that he just scraped it, and it is not mold. V6 stated it is because of leakage from the second-floor bathroom. V6 added that fire safety told him to fix it when they were in the facility in March. V6 stated he has not had a chance to do it. Surveyor asked V6 if they ever tested the deposits for mold, and he (V6) stated no. A document presented by V1 (Administrator), (undated), titled general maintenance policy states as follows: the facility shall maintain the building in good repair, safe and free of hazards. The same document stated in part, 1. The maintenance director shall make physical plant repair as needed. 4. Maintain the interior and exterior finishes of the building as needed to keep it attractive and clean and safe (painting, washing and other types of maintenance). 9. Maintain plumbing fixtures and piping in good repair and properly functioning.
Sept 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

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

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 honor resident's advance directives for DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor resident's advance directives for DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) for 1 resident (R1) of 3 residents reviewed for CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation)/Advanced Directives in the sample. Findings include: R1 is a [AGE] year-old with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, left heel pressure ulcer, Dementia with psychotic disturbance, heart failure, and Alzheimer's Disease. R1 was shown to have a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order that was signed by his guardian on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 12:20 PM, V2 director of nursing (DON) stated, R1 was in his 80's or 90's, alert times one and up and about with 2-staff assist using mechanical lift. He (R1) hangs out in the dining room, is verbal but confused and needs assist with feeding. V2 stated I (V2) was in the building in the morning and when I left, I was called by (V4) about R1's change of condition when I (V2) came in the building around 4:00 PM, V4 licensed practical nurse (LPN) stated she called V3 assistant director of nursing (ADON) and gave a report and we had called a code blue and R1 went to the hospital. Paramedics came and continued CPR after staff-initiated CPR. Surveyor asked which staff performed CPR, V2 indicated that there were two people, one of which was V4 but did not know the other staff person but was possibly a CNA. On [DATE] at 12:25 PM V3 (ADON) stated, The staff will know the advanced directive of DNR or Full Code and it is shown in the electronic medical record. She (V4) told me she found (R1) unresponsive and she had already initiated CPR and she called 911 and had the paperwork and that paramedics were enroute. It's in PCC (electronic medical record system) if they are DNR or full code. If the resident was full code that would mean to initiate CPR and if DNR they know not to provide resuscitation and otherwise they would call a code. On [DATE], efforts to reach V4 could not be obtained for interview. However, on [DATE] at 4:58 PM, V4 wrote in part, Nurses Notes Note Text: resident sitting at dining room table, head facing table, no response noted when name called. Resident color appears dusk, no blood pressure, no carotid or brachial pulse noted. No vital signs noted. No spo2 noted. CPR started, Oxygen applied via nasal cannula 911 called, left voicemail with state guardian and family member, DON and ADON aware. 3 paramedics arrived, continued CPR and oxygen. Resident placed on stretcher, Paramedics transporting to nearest hospital. Records showed a DNR order dated 5/16 24 signed by R1's State Guardian which reads in part: Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR); Do Not Attempt Respiratory Resuscitation. Facility policy titled Advanced Directive Code Policy dated [DATE] reads in part, It is the policy of this facility to adhere to the residents' rights to formulate advanced directives. in accordance to these rights, this facility will implement procedures to communicate a resident's code status to those individuals who need to know this information.
May 2024 1 deficiency
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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to maintain current Food Protection Manager Certification for Director of Food and Nutrition Services and provide services of a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to maintain current Food Protection Manager Certification for Director of Food and Nutrition Services and provide services of a person-in-charge (PIC) with the required Food Protection Manager Certification. These failures have the potential to affect all 44 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 05/20/2024 at 11:10 AM V1 (Administrator) provided facility census listing 44 residents residing in the facility during course of the survey. On 05/20/2024 at 11:00 AM during initial kitchen tour, surveyor observed V9 (Dietary Aid) cooking lunch. Surveyor asked V9 what she is making today, V9 responded, I'm making pulled pork and bean burrito, Mexican rice, and zucchini. Normally, it's me, another dietary aid, and our cook who's also a dietary manager in the kitchen, but she is not here today. On 05/20/24 at 2:12 PM surveyor interviewed V1 (Administrator) who stated in summary: V14 (Dietary Manager/Cook) is not here today, she had loss in the family, is on bereavement leave, and we don't know when she'll be coming back. V9 (Dietary Aid) is covering for V14. V14 arranged for V13 (Former Cook) to cover for her during her absence, but I don't know why he's not here today, he was supposed to be here at 7:00 AM this morning. On 05/20/24 at 3:36 PM surveyor interviewed V13 (Former Cook) who stated in summary: I work in another facility, I'm a cook there. V14 (Dietary Manager/Cook) notified me this morning (05/20/2024), that she might need me to cover for her, but I didn't hear anything else from her, so I didn't come this morning. V1 (Administrator) called me later today and asked what time I was coming over; I didn't know they still needed me, but I confirmed that I'll be coming shortly. I'll stay to cover for V14 until she's back. On 05/21/2024 at 11:08 AM surveyor observed V13 (Former Cook) sitting in the nook outside of the kitchen. On 05/21/24 at 11:27 AM during kitchen tour surveyor observed V9 (Dietary Aid) cooking lunch. Surveyor clarified with V9 what she cooked since yesterday during abscess of person-in-charge (PIC) with the required Food Protection Manager Certification, V9 stated I'm cooking chicken teriyaki, rice, and cabbage today. I cooked all three meals yesterday, breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and breakfast today. I started cooking lunch today as well, and that's when V13 took over. On 05/21/24 at 1:13 PM surveyor interviewed V15 (Dietician) who stated in summary: The cook's (V14) license (Food Protection Manager Certification) has been expired for about two months now. V9 (Dietary Aid) would have to have the Food Protection Manager Certification in order to cook the food; otherwise, she is not qualified to cook the food. On 05/22/2024 at 11:02 AM V1 (Administrator) provided, after multiple requests, V14's (Dietary Manager/Cook) Food Protection Manager Certification search result which showed V14's certification has expired on 03/05/2024 and is invalid. V9's (Dietary Aid) Food Handler Certification issued on 01/22/2023, valid through 3 years from issue date reviewed. No additional certificates available for V9. The facility Person-in-charge (PIC) with the required Food Protection Manager Certification policy unavailable upon multiple requests.
Aug 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, and comfortable environment. The facility failed to repair broken wall-mounted toilet tissue hold...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, and comfortable environment. The facility failed to repair broken wall-mounted toilet tissue holders with shared bathroom, missing baseboard exposing bathroom hot water heating system. The facility also failed to repair missing floor and wall tiles in the bathroom resulting in uneven concrete floor for a shared bathroom. This applies to all 40 residents residing in the facility. The findings include: On 8/26/23 at 10:10 PM, observed room AA's bathroom wall tile with two broken and missing ceramic tile pieces behind the toilet. On 8/26/23 at 10:15 AM, the shared bathroom across from room AA was observed with missing floor tiles (6 inches x 12 inches), leaving an uneven, loose, and inch-deep concrete floor close to the bathroom entrance door resulting in potential tripping hazard. Both shared bathrooms on the first floor close to room AA were observed with a broken wall-mounted toilet tissue holder, exposing sharp edges to residents. On 8/26/23 at 11:00 AM, observed the second-floor shared bathroom on the southwest side with a broken wall-mounted toilet tissue holder exposing sharp edges to residents. On 8/26/23 at 11:05 AM, observed the second-floor shared bathroom on the northwest side with a broken wall-mounted toilet tissue holder exposing sharp edges to residents. On 8/26/23 at 11:10 AM, observed two north unit shared bathrooms (close to room B) with a missing baseboard to the hot water heating system, exposing the inside heating element. On 8/26/23 at 12:45 PM, V6 (Maintenance Director) stated, I started three months ago, and we didn't have a maintenance director when I started. I am working on catching up on the maintenance work. The resident should have a clean and hazard-free environment. I ordered tissue holders and will take care of them on Monday. I will replace the missing tiles in the bathrooms. The facility presented a Homelike Environment (revised in August 2011) policy statement states that the residents are provided with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment . 5. Notify the interdisciplinary team and or anyone in the maintenance department for any concerns related to the resident's environment, such as broken equipment or changes in the room temperature of the resident room. On 8/26/23 at 9:45 AM, V2 stated that there are 40 residents with their facility as of today's census.
Jul 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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that two of their dietary employees who handle and prepare...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that two of their dietary employees who handle and prepare food, were current with the food handlers training certificate program and failed to follow their facility policy on food handling. This failure has the potential to affect all 42 residents who reside at the facility, whose meals are prepared by dietary staff. Findings include: Reviewed facility staff roster provided by V1 (Administrator) which listed V10 as a dietary aide and V11 as a housekeeper/cook. Reviewed the dietary department staff schedules provided by V5 (Human Resources/Scheduler) from June 2023 to current which listed both V10 and V11 as current dietary staff. On 07/24/2023, requested food handlers' certificates for all dietary staff from V1 (Administrator). Certificates not provided for V10 (Dietary Aide) and V11 (Housekeeper/Cook). At 2:30 PM, V1 said that he was waiting for V10 and V11 to provide him with a copy. On 07/26/2023 at 11:10 AM, V1 (Administrator) provided food handler certificates for V10 (Dietary Aide) and V11 (Housekeeper/Cook) that both showed issued/completion date of 07/24/2023. On 07/26/2023 at 12:33 PM, V3 (Dietary Manager) verified who all the current employed dietary staff were which included V10 (Dietary Aide) and V11 (Housekeeper/Cook). V3 then said V10 and V11's food handler certificates both expired last week and were both told to retake the course as soon as possible. Requested the expired certificates for V10 and V11 from V3 who said, they threw them away. On 07/26/2023 at 12:38 PM, V5 (Human Resources/Scheduler) said she asked V10 (Dietary Aide) for her food handler certificate on 07/24 but V10 said she couldn't find it. V5 then said that V11 (Housekeeper/Cook) went from housekeeping to the cook position on 05/29/2023 and that V5 had requested V11's food handler certificate multiple times since this date but it was never provided to her. V5 (Human Resources/Scheduler) said she asked V11 for her certificate again on 07/24/2023 and was then told by V11 that her license expired in 2021. At 1:08 PM, V5 said V10 (Dietary Aide) was rehired to the facility on [DATE], then provided a copy of V10's previous food handler certificate with expiration date listed as 03/09/2023. On 07/26/2023 at 1:16 PM, V11 (Housekeeper/Cook) said her previous certificate expired between 2021 and 2022 so she threw it away. She then said she started working in kitchen on 05/29/2023 and both V3 (Dietary Manager) and V5 (Human Resources/Scheduler) asked her multiple times for her certificate but she kept forgetting it. V11 then said the last time V5 asked for her certificate was two to three weeks ago and V11 told her that she had to renew it and was told to complete as soon as possible. On 07/24/2023, V11 said she was asked by V3 and V5 if she had her certificate and again said she didn't have it done. V11 was told by V3 and V5 to get it done today. V11 (Housekeeper/Cook) then said it's important to have a current food handler certificate due to safety and sanitary issues. V5 added that she has had multiple food handler/infection control in-services this year. On 7/26/2023 at 1:47 PM, V5 (Human Resources/Scheduler) said V11 works in housekeeping, laundry and dietary and when pulled into dietary, V11 works as either a dietary aide or cook, wherever she is needed. On 7/26/2023 at 1:51 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist) said all food handlers should be certified so they know the process of properly handling food, food temps and the dangers of improperly prepared food to avoid foodborne illness. Reviewed facility's Preventing Foodborne Illness-Food Handling policy last revised November 2017 that reads in part: Policy Interpretation and Implementation: All employees who handle, prepare, or serve food will be trained in the practices of safe food handling and preventing foodborne illness. Employees will demonstrate knowledge and competency in these practices prior to working with food or serving food to residents.
Mar 2023 1 deficiency
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 and record review, the facility failed to initiate a water treatment plan to prevent the growth of Legionnaire's and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens; failed to provide evid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate a water treatment plan to prevent the growth of Legionnaire's and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens; failed to provide evidence to ensure the water treatment plan was consistently being implemented to minimize the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in building water systems; failed to follow their water management program policy and procedures that demonstrate its documented program measures. This failure has the potential to affect all 41 residents who currently reside in the facility. Findings include: On 03/15/2023 at 11: 50 AM, surveyor requested water management plan from V1 (Administrator) who stated the maintenance director had been working from home the last several weeks/months and had the facility's water management plan in his home along with all the documents needed to show what measures were in place to prevent the growth of waterborne pathogens within the building water systems. V1 added that this maintenance director passed away two weeks ago, and facility staff have been unable to retrieve these documents from within his home. At 2:34 PM, V1 (Administrator) stated the facility did not use an outside source for anything because the maintenance director did all the required testing. V1 then stated he would attempt to find an outside source to initiate and/or complete their water management plan requirements. On 03/16/2023 at 10:44 AM, V1 (Administrator) provided a proposed agreement from an outside source to perform Legionella water testing at the facility. Review of facility's undated water management program policy showed, the facility will implement the water management program to reduce the risk for Legionnaire's disease associated with the building water system and devices, reduce the growth and spread of Legionella bacteria in the facility and to identify areas or devices in the facility where Legionella might grow or spread to people so that the facility can reduce the risk. Under procedure, the policy showed the water management team will be an interdisciplinary team of facility department representatives who will oversee the program, identify control locations and limits, communicate regularly about the program, monitor and document the performance of the program and identify and take corrective actions as needed. Policy continued with the maintenance director completing a building assessment using a form to identify buildings at increased risk and implement the water management program if needed. Under facility water systems, any identified areas of concern would have control measures applied and monitored. Under quality of water, the quality of water will be measured on a weekly and as needed basis to ensure that changes that may lead to Legionella growth (such as drop in chlorine levels) are not occurring.
Feb 2022 1 deficiency
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 discard stock medication, used for all residents, and failed to discard expired medication for 1 of 1 resident (R32). This fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to discard stock medication, used for all residents, and failed to discard expired medication for 1 of 1 resident (R32). This failure has the potential to affect 22 of 39 residents. Findings include: On 2/1/2022 at 1:15 PM surveyor reviewed medication cart on the 2nd floor with V3 (Licensed Practical Nurse - (LPN)). Findings: 1. An unopened pack of 30 tablets of Meclizine 25 mg for R32 which expired on 11/2021 was found in the medication cart with unexpired medications. 2. 12 tablets of Bismatrol chewable tablets expired on 1/2022 found in the medication cart. On 2/1/2022 at 1:30 PM V3 said that the expired medications should have been taken out and put in a bin designated for expired medication, and the stocked medication discarded. On 2/4/2022 at 11:10 am, V2 (Director of Nursing) said, if the expired medication is a stocked medication, she expects her staff to discard them, otherwise all expired medication should be sent back to the pharmacy. Facility Policy: All medications are checked for expiration dates by respective department. Procedure: #4. Expired items are disposed of or returned to sender.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
Concerns
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 60/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Ahva Care Of Stickney's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY 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 Ahva Care Of Stickney Staffed?

CMS rates AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the Illinois average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 71%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ahva Care Of Stickney?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 7 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Ahva Care Of Stickney?

AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY 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 51 certified beds and approximately 45 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in STICKNEY, Illinois.

How Does Ahva Care Of Stickney Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ahva Care Of Stickney?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Ahva Care Of Stickney Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY 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 Ahva Care Of Stickney Stick Around?

Staff turnover at AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Illinois average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 71%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Ahva Care Of Stickney Ever Fined?

AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Ahva Care Of Stickney on Any Federal Watch List?

AHVA CARE OF STICKNEY 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.