ALLURE OF STOCKTON
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Allure of Stockton has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and generally recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #100 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, placing it in the top half of nursing homes in the state, and it is the best option in Jo Daviess County. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of reported issues increasing from 5 in 2023 to 6 in 2024. Staffing is a concern, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is low at 10%, which is significantly better than the state average, suggesting that staff members are familiar with the residents. Notably, there have been some compliance issues, such as a failure to label an opened vial of Tuberculin, which is important for ensuring proper health protocols, and cleanliness concerns in the food service area. While the facility has no fines on record and has good RN coverage, these specific incidents highlight areas needing improvement.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Illinois
- #100/665
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 10% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 38 points below Illinois's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 39 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Illinois. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (10%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (10%)
38 points below Illinois average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Jun 2024
6 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 ensure a resident was provided catheter care in a dign...
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 to complete assessments including wound measurements for a reside...
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 ensure a resident had an anchoring device for an indwe...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an opened vial of Tuberculin was labeled with a...
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 clean ceiling fans above the food service area and failed to clean and defrost a freezer. This applies to all residents in the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to submit required payroll based journal (PBJ) data. This effects all residents in the facility.
The findings include:
The Centers for Medicare...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
5 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide wound care treatment as prescribed by the physician and in manner to promote resident comfort. This failure applies t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed administer the correct dose of an antipsychotic medication and failed to notice an antipsychotic medication on the floor of the ...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to prevent cross-contamination. This failure applies to 1 of 2 residents (R11) in the sample of 13....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer medications at ordered times. There were 27 opportunities with 9 errors, resulting in a 33.33% medication error ra...
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 label food items, failed to ensure a functional thermometer was utilized in two freezers, and failed to maintain a freezer to...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2022
8 deficiencies
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to apply a hand and wrist splint to prevent contractures for 1 of 2 residents (R19) reviewed for positioning and mobility in the...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were in place for 2 of 3 residents (R27,R6) reviewed for falls in the sample of 13.
The ...
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 offer and provide incontinence care in a manner to prevent a urinary tract infection for 1 resident (R7) with a history of ur...
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 track and document behaviors for a resident receiving an antipsychotic medication for 1 of 4 residents (R22) reviewed for antipsychotic med...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility's lunch menu on 4/19/22, and did not follow the recipe for pureed ham, provide pureed bread for residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the ham was pureed to the correct consistency for the lunch meal on 4/19/22 for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for pure...
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 the kitchen was cleaned on a regular basis. The facility failed to ensure the kitchen did not have grease on walls, co...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer and provide influenza vaccinations between October 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022.
This applies to all 33 facility residents.
The finding...
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
- • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Illinois.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
- • 10% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 38 points below Illinois's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Allure Of Stockton's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ALLURE OF STOCKTON an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Allure Of Stockton Staffed?
CMS rates ALLURE OF STOCKTON's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 10%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Allure Of Stockton?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at ALLURE OF STOCKTON during 2022 to 2024. These included: 19 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Allure Of Stockton?
ALLURE OF STOCKTON 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 49 certified beds and approximately 28 residents (about 57% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in STOCKTON, Illinois.
How Does Allure Of Stockton Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, ALLURE OF STOCKTON's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (10%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Allure Of Stockton?
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 Allure Of Stockton Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ALLURE OF STOCKTON 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 4-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 Allure Of Stockton Stick Around?
Staff at ALLURE OF STOCKTON tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 10%, the facility is 36 percentage points below the Illinois average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.
Was Allure Of Stockton Ever Fined?
ALLURE OF STOCKTON 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 Allure Of Stockton on Any Federal Watch List?
ALLURE OF STOCKTON 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.