Hialeah Shores Nursing and Rehab Center
Miami, Florida · CCN 105511
11 surveys since 2011, and no finding has been recorded at harm level.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
- Citations on record
- 31
- Surveys
- 11
- Harm or worse
- 0
- Immediate jeopardy
- 0
No finding on record has been cited at harm level or above.
Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.
The facility
- Certified beds
- 106
- Ownership
- For profit - Corporation
- Chain
- Independent
- County
- Miami-Dade
- Medicare-certified since
- 1985
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 5
- Health inspection
- 5
- Staffing
- 4
- Quality measures
- 5
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=12, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Feb 29, 2024
984 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 3.95 | 3.57 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 1.31 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 26.5% | 44.5% |
As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.
Enforcement
No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.
Severity of recent findings
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G— | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D3100.0% | E— | F— |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C— |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at Hialeah Shores Nursing and Rehab Center, in the surveyor’s own words.
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF921Jan 28, 2021
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure linens and residents personal laundry items were handled in a sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination and the spread of infection. as evidenced by failure to wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during handling of soiled linen and failure to ensure hand hygiene supplies are readily available on hand in area where soiled laundry was being handled. On 01/27/21 at 10:19 AM, observation revealed housekeeping Staff K wearing gloves, bending over a three feet tall yellow barrel, and moving linens from one barrel to another without wearing a gown. An interview was conducted with staff K, and she explained that she was sorting the resident's soiled linens. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF641Feb 29, 2024
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately code a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one (Resident #28) out of one resident reviewed for dental assessments. Resident #28 was coded incorrectly as being edentulous. The findings included: Observation and interview with Resident #28 was conducted via a Spanish translator on 2/27/2024 at 7:45 AM. The resident was sitting up in bed, preparing for breakfast, using a hearing amplifier device to hear. The resident had natural teeth, missing teeth on the bottom and had bilateral hand contractures. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF847Feb 29, 2024
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the arbitration agreements presented to three residents (Resident number 12, Resident number 52 and Resident number 153) out of three residents reviewed informed residents or their representatives of the nature and implications of any proposed binding arbitration agreement, to inform their decision on whether or not to enter into such agreements. There were 105 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF583Dec 1, 2022
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the privacy for one resident (Resident # 59) out of one resident for privacy as evidenced by, posting a visible sign on the wall of Resident # 59 room disclosing Protective Health Information (PHI). There were ninety- nine residents residing in the facility at the time of this survey. The findings included: Observation completed on 11/28/2022 at 10:26 AM revealed Resident #59 resting in bed. Resident #59 was alert but has some confusion. Observation revealed a paper attached to the wall at the head of the resident's bed with the resident's name and a sign indicating Heart Monitor in Use sign that stated, Please do not unplug unit. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF656Jan 28, 2021
Based on observations,record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement the pain care plan for one resident (Resident #16) that reported concerns with pain, out 22 sampled residents. The facility had 7 residents on a pain management program out of the 88 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The Findings Included: During observation and interview on 1/25/21 at 4:45 PM, Resident #16 reported she had a lot of pain that never goes away on her waist. She reported she received medications, for pain and she would be getting them soon. The pain got better after the meds but never goes away. Record review of the Face Sheet for Resident # 16 revealed, the resident was re-admitted on [DATE] to the facility. […]
Read 20 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 20 of 31 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Feb 29, 2024Standard2 findings
- Dec 1, 2022Standard1 finding
- Jan 28, 2021Standard and complaint9 findings
- Sep 6, 2019Complaint1 finding
- Feb 15, 2018Standard3 findings
- Feb 2, 2017Standard4 findings
- Oct 26, 2015Standard3 findings
- Dec 2, 2013—1 finding
Show the 3 earlier surveys
- Jul 25, 2013—3 findings
- May 17, 2012—3 findings
- Mar 10, 2011—1 finding
Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.
Comparable facilities
The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction