← Back to search results

APERION CARE WESLEY

CHICAGO, IL · Cook County · For profit - Corporation · 108 certified beds

📍 1415 West Foster Avenue, Chicago, IL 60640  ·  📞 (773) 769-5500

Medicare ID: 145591  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Mar 6, 2026

Overall Safety Score
61
out of 100
Use Caution
Component Scores
31
Inspection
66
Staffing
52
Enforcement
80
Complaints
87
Quality
📋 Last inspected: March 6, 2026 📦 CMS data as of: May 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
31
Staffing
66
Enforcement
52
Complaints
80
Quality Outcomes
87

What the numbers mean

APERION CARE WESLEY scored 61 out of 100 — 5 points above the state average of 56.

📋 Inspections: 67 citations over the last 36 months — 24 more than the state average (43). 3 were rated serious (G+) — inspectors found actual or potential harm to residents. 16 findings recurred across inspection cycles — indicating a problem that was not fixed.

👥 Staffing: Staffing is within an acceptable range but not among the highest-performing facilities. Ask about nurse coverage on evenings, nights, and weekends when you visit.

⚠️ Penalties & enforcement: CMS has recorded 1 enforcement action totaling $19,292 against this facility. Penalties are only issued after a facility fails two levels of regulatory review — meaning this is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation. Ask for a written explanation of every fine and what corrective actions were taken.

💬 Complaints: Some complaint-driven inspections have occurred. These are unannounced visits triggered by formal concerns from residents, families, or staff. Ask the facility how they handle resident grievances.

💚 Resident quality outcomes: This facility's star-rated quality measures are in the strong range. Key indicators like fall rates, antipsychotic use, and vaccination coverage compare favorably to national benchmarks — a positive signal for day-to-day resident care.

🔍 Most cited areas: The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster., The facility had a problem with exits, stairways, emergency lighting, or evacuation routes that residents and staff may need during a fire or emergency.. The full report provides the complete citation record with dates, severity levels, and plain-English descriptions.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

67
Total citations
State avg: 42.9
3
Serious (G+)
State avg: 4.1
16
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

45
7
Hazardous Areas & Fire Risks
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
5
Exits & Evacuation Routes
The facility had a problem with exits, stairways, emergency lighting, or evacuation routes that residents and staff may need during a fire or emergency.

⚖ Penalties & Enforcement

Federal civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are only issued after a facility has failed two levels of regulatory review — meaning problems were found on inspection and the facility could not rebut the findings. This is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation.

$19,292
Total federal fines
1
Enforcement action

⚠ Each enforcement action required CMS to make a separate non-compliance determination — meaning this facility failed two levels of regulatory review before any fine was issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective steps were taken.

📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
📊
Enforcement score: 52/100 — above the state average of 46/100 — relatively better than peer facilities. A score below 70 indicates a meaningful enforcement history that warrants direct conversation with facility management.
Serious Citations That May Have Triggered Enforcement
Notification of change in condition — Resident was harmed · Mar 6, 2026
F0687 — Resident was harmed · Jan 16, 2025
Nurse aide competency — No harm, could worsen · Jan 16, 2025

📅 Per-action enforcement records (date, fine amount, and penalty type for each individual action) are sourced from a separate CMS enforcement dataset and will be added in a future data update.

🩹

Resident Wellbeing — Key Indicators

These are the measures families ask about most. They come from CMS clinical assessments of every resident — not just inspection reports. Stars (★) count toward the official CMS quality star rating.

Antipsychotic medication use
0.4% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. High use can signal residents being over-medicated rather than receiving attentive care.
Flu vaccination rate
2.9% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu this season. Higher is better.
Re-hospitalized after discharge
25.3% lower is better
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. Risk-adjusted for resident health.
Hospitalization rate
9.5% lower is better
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year. Adjusted for how sick residents were.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures & Medicare claims data. Scores shown are the most recent 4-quarter averages for long-stay residents.

Track this facility with free email alerts

Get notified when new inspections, citations, score changes, or enforcement actions are published for this facility.

No account or payment required. Enter your email and we will save this facility-watch request.

What to know about Aperion Care Wesley

Aperion Care Wesley is a Medicare-certified nursing home in Chicago, Il with 108 certified beds. Its current Senior Care Report Card score is 61/100, placing it in the Use Caution range. The latest CMS survey date in our data is Mar 6, 2026. Over the last 36 months, our CMS citation data shows 67 citations, including 3 serious findings and 16 repeat findings. Families comparing this facility should pay close attention to inspection history, penalties and enforcement before scheduling a tour or accepting placement. Ownership type on file: For profit - Corporation.

🟡
Overall Assessment — Use Caution  ·  61/100
This facility has mixed results. Some areas need a closer look before you decide.
What to do next: Proceed carefully. Ask management directly about the specific concerns listed in this report.
Federal Penalty: $19,292
CMS has imposed civil monetary penalties totaling $19,292 against this facility. Penalties are only levied after a separate non-compliance determination — meaning a facility must fail two levels of regulatory review before a fine is issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective actions were taken.
👥
Staffing Below Federal Minimum Standards
This facility provides 0.70 RN hours per resident per day — below the CMS minimum of 0.75 hours. Total nurse staffing is 4.26 hours per resident per day. Understaffing is the strongest predictor of poor inspection outcomes. Ask specifically about RN coverage on evenings, nights, and weekends.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Inspection record is well below average. Multiple or serious deficiencies found.
👥 Staffing
Staffing is in an acceptable range but below the highest-performing facilities.
⚖ Penalties
Facility has received federal fines or enforcement sanctions. Requires direct explanation from management.
💬 Complaints
Complaint activity is low — few formal complaints filed by residents or families.
Quality outcome measures are strong — fall rates, antipsychotic use, and other key indicators compare favorably to national benchmarks.
⚠ Serious Findings on Record: 3 citation(s) where inspectors found actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents. See Section D for the full details and ask management how each was resolved.
Score breakdown — the numbers behind this assessment
👥 Staffing 66
What it measures RN hours per resident per day, total nurse hours, and RN turnover rate.
💡 Understaffing is the strongest single predictor of poor inspection outcomes.
📋 Inspection 31
What it measures Number, severity (A–L), and scope of deficiencies found. Repeat findings carry extra weight.
💡 Every citation in Section D feeds directly into this score.
⚖ Penalties 52
What it measures Whether CMS escalated from a deficiency citation to actual financial or operational sanctions.
💡 A penalty means the facility already failed a second level of regulatory review.
💬 Complaints 80
What it measures Volume of complaint-triggered inspections and the share that were substantiated.
💡 Complaint surveys are unannounced — they often surface issues annual surveys miss.
🎯 Quality outcomes 87
What it measures Resident outcome measures: falls, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic use, weight loss, hospitalizations.
💡 Reflects the lived experience of residents beyond what inspectors observe.

Each pillar scores 0–100 and is combined into the overall score. A strong overall can mask a weak pillar — compare all four and see how they stack against the state average in Section B.

🏗 How This Facility Compares to IL State Averages

Comparing a facility to others in the same state puts its score in context. A facility might have 8 citations and that could be above average in one state and below in another. Green means this facility is doing better than its peers; red means it's falling short.

Metric This facility IL avg vs. State
Overall score
The combined Senior Care Report Card score out of 100.
61 56 ▲ Better than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
31 44 ▼ Worse than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
66 52 ▲ Better than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
52 46 ▲ Better than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
80 76 ▲ Better than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
87 68 ▲ Better than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
67 42.9 ▼ Worse than state avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
3 4.1 ▲ Better than state avg

📅 Inspection Timeline

State health inspectors visit nursing homes on a regular cycle — typically every 12 to 15 months — and document every deficiency they find. The timeline below shows the date and scale of each inspection visit over the past several years. A pattern of worsening surveys is a red flag even if the most recent visit looks clean.

2026-03-06
2 citations  (1 serious)
2025-12-08
1 citations
2025-08-27
1 citations
2025-01-16
39 citations  (1 serious)
2024-12-11
1 citations
2024-08-19
4 citations
2024-06-21
1 citations  (1 serious)
2024-01-25
18 citations
2023-03-17
20 citations

Bar length proportional to citation count. Red = serious findings (severity G+). Orange = elevated. Green = low.

📄 Full Citation Record

Every time state inspectors visit a nursing home, they write up anything that doesn’t meet federal standards. Each write-up is called a citation.

Each citation shows what the problem was and how serious it was, using a color-coded badge:

Confused by codes like F0732 or K0363? Use the free inspection report decoder to understand F-tags, fire-safety K-tags, severity letters, and repeat findings. Get the decoder →
Green — No residents harmed Yellow — Risk of harm, no injury Orange — A resident was harmed Red — Life or safety in danger

A Repeat tag means the same problem appeared in a previous inspection — it was not fully corrected the first time. Citations shown cover the last two years.

Survey: 2026-03-06 2 citation(s) — 1 serious
F0580 Resident was harmed
Notification of change in condition
F0656 No harm, could worsen
Comprehensive care plan
Survey: 2025-12-08 1 citation(s)
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
Survey: 2025-08-27 1 citation(s)
F0550 No harm, could worsen
Resident rights & dignity
Survey: 2025-01-16 39 citation(s) — 1 serious
F0687 Resident was harmed
F0687
F0726 No harm, could worsen
Nurse aide competency
F0565 No harm, could worsen
F0565
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
E0015 No harm, could worsen
E0015
K0531 No harm, could worsen
K0531
Fire and life safety requirement. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0918 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: essential electrical system maintenance
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
F0887 No harm, could worsen
F0887
K0345 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire alarm testing and maintenance
The facility had a problem with fire alarms, smoke detectors, alarm testing, or alarm outage procedures. These systems warn staff and residents when fire or smoke is detected.
K0712 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire drills and staff preparedness
The facility had a problem with fire drills, evacuation planning, staff preparedness, or documentation showing that staff know what to do in an emergency.
F0921 No harm, could worsen
F0921
K0353 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing
The facility had a problem with sprinkler coverage, maintenance, testing, or outage procedures. Sprinklers are a key fire-protection system that help control fires before residents are in danger.
F0838 No harm, could worsen
Facility assessment update
K0271 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: discharge from exits
The facility had a problem with exits, stairways, emergency lighting, or evacuation routes that residents and staff may need during a fire or emergency.
K0211 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: safe exit routes
The facility had a problem with exits, stairways, emergency lighting, or evacuation routes that residents and staff may need during a fire or emergency.
F0813 No harm, could worsen
F0813
F0755 No harm, could worsen
Pharmaceutical services
K0225 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: stairs and exit enclosures
The facility had a problem with exits, stairways, emergency lighting, or evacuation routes that residents and staff may need during a fire or emergency.
K0324 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: cooking equipment and kitchen protection
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
K0781 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: special hazard protection systems
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
F0883 No harm, could worsen
Immunizations (flu & pneumonia)
K0923 No harm, could worsen
Gas safety: medical gas storage and handling
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
F0761 No harm, could worsen
Medication storage & labeling
K0321 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: hazardous rooms and storage areas
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
K0293 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: hazardous area doors
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
K0311 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: vertical openings must be protected
The facility had a problem with general building fire-safety requirements, construction type, or fire-rated building features.
K0374 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: smoke barrier doors must close properly
The facility had a problem with corridor doors, smoke doors, or hallway barriers that are supposed to slow smoke and fire spread so residents have time to evacuate or shelter safely.
F0686 No harm, could worsen
Pressure ulcer prevention & treatment
F0558 No harm, could worsen
Reasonable accommodations
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
F0759 No harm, could worsen
Medication error rate control
F0677 No harm, could worsen
Personal hygiene & grooming assistance
F0584 No harm, could worsen
F0584
F0693 No harm, could worsen
Tube feeding management
F0636 No harm, could worsen
F0636
F0760 No harm, could worsen
Medication error — no significant harm
F0725 No harm, could worsen
Adequate & competent nursing staff
F0695 No harm, could worsen
Respiratory care
F0657 No harm, could worsen
Care plan timing & review
Survey: 2024-12-11 1 citation(s)
F0921 No harm, could worsen
F0921
Survey: 2024-08-19 4 citation(s)
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0677 No harm, could worsen
Personal hygiene & grooming assistance
F0558 No harm, could worsen
Reasonable accommodations
Survey: 2024-06-21 1 citation(s) — 1 serious
F0686 Resident was harmed
Pressure ulcer prevention & treatment
🩹

How Are Residents Doing?

Inspections tell you whether a facility followed the rules. These measures tell you how residents actually fared — whether they fell, experienced pain, lost weight, or were over-medicated. CMS collects this data through regular clinical assessments that nurses complete for every resident. Unlike inspections, which happen once a year, these assessments happen continuously.

✓ Positive signal: Most star-rated quality measures for this facility are within a good range, suggesting residents\' day-to-day wellbeing compares favorably to typical nursing homes.

How to read these cards: Each card shows one measure. Lower percentages are better for most (e.g. fewer falls), but higher is better for vaccination rates and community return. ★ Star rating marks measures CMS uses in its official quality star rating.

Long Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Daily activity decline
6.5% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost the ability to dress, eat, or move around independently over the past year. Rising rates can signal that residents aren't receiving enough physical therapy or that staffing is too thin to support mobility.
★ Star rating
Urinary tract infections
0.3% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who had a urinary tract infection. While some UTIs are unavoidable, high rates can point to poor hydration practices, catheter hygiene, or rushed care routines.
★ Star rating
Antipsychotic medication use
0.4% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. These medications carry serious risks for older adults. High use often signals that a facility is medicating residents to manage behavior instead of addressing needs through attentive, person-centered care.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing on…
3.8% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
★ Star rating
Flu vaccination rate
2.9% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu. Nursing homes are high-risk environments for flu outbreaks. Anything below 90% warrants a question about the facility's vaccination policy.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure u…
6.4% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an…
13.4% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
Physical restraints used
5.3% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents physically restrained (lap belts, side rails). Federal regulations require restraints to be a last resort. High use is a red flag for understaffed facilities cutting corners on behavioral care.
Signs of depression
69.6% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents showing symptoms of depression. Social isolation, lack of meaningful activities, and poor staffing all contribute. This measure reflects the emotional quality of life inside the facility.
Unexplained weight loss
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost 5% or more of body weight unexpectedly. This can indicate inadequate nutrition, difficulty eating without assistance, or unaddressed medical issues.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
95.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Pneumonia vaccination rate
3.5% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against pneumococcal pneumonia — one of the leading causes of death in older adults. Higher is better.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
92.9% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or wor…
30.5% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or worsened bowel or bladder incontinence
Short Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Worsening depression symptoms
1.1% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents whose depression got measurably worse over the past year — despite being in a care facility.
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and a…
59.9% lower is better
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Emergency room visits (short-stay)
42.8% lower is better
Share of short-stay residents sent to the ER during their recovery stay. ER visits are disruptive for recovering patients and sometimes avoidable with better on-site clinical management.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures (2025Q1-2025Q4). Collected via standardized clinical assessments — not inspector visits.

🏥

Hospitalization & ER Visits

These numbers come directly from Medicare claims — real billing records of every time a resident was hospitalized or sent to the emergency room. They\'re among the most objective measures of care quality because they can\'t be influenced by how a facility writes up an assessment. The adjusted score is the most meaningful number — it\'s been corrected to account for how sick residents were, so a facility treating frailer patients isn\'t unfairly penalized.

What to look for: An adjusted score significantly above the expected score means this facility hospitalizes residents more often than peer facilities with similar patient populations — that gap is worth asking about directly.

Short Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Re-hospitalized after going home
25.3% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 25.2% Expected: 23.8%
About the same as similar facilities
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. A high rate suggests residents were discharged before they were ready, or that the facility didn't coordinate follow-up care well. Risk-adjusted so facilities treating sicker residents aren't unfairly penalized.
★ Star rating
Hospitalization rate (long-stay)
9.5% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 9.7% Expected: 11.4%
✓ Better than expected for similar residents
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year, adjusted for how ill they were. A high rate relative to expectations suggests the facility may be sending residents to the hospital for issues that skilled nursing staff should be able to manage on-site.
Long Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay res…
1.9% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 1.8% Expected: 1.8%
About the same as similar facilities
Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days
★ Star rating
Number of outpatient emergency department visits …
1.6% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 1.5% Expected: 1.6%
About the same as similar facilities
Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days

Source: CMS Medicare claims data. Scores are risk-adjusted — they account for how ill residents were when admitted so facilities treating sicker populations aren\'t penalized for it.

💬 Questions to Ask Before Touring

These questions are generated specifically from this facility's score profile and citation history — not a generic checklist. A facility's willingness to answer them openly, and the quality of their answers, is itself an important signal. Bring this list when you tour or call.

  1. Federal inspectors found 3 citations rated as causing actual harm or immediate jeopardy in the public record. Walk us through each incident: what happened, who was affected, and what specific policy or staffing changes have been put in place since?
  2. What is your current RN-to-resident ratio on each shift, and what is your annual staff turnover rate among nursing staff?
  3. This facility has a significant CMS enforcement history. Can you identify each action in the past three years, what it was for, and what systemic — not just procedural — changes were made to prevent recurrence?
  4. 3 citations in the public record were rated as causing actual harm to a resident. Can you describe what occurred in each case and what specific safeguards are now in place?
  5. Can we speak privately with two or three current residents or their families?

👪 Family Decision Guide

This guide translates this facility's data into practical next steps for families. It is not a recommendation for or against placement — it is a structured framework for the conversations you need to have before making a decision.

✓ Positives to confirm

  • Low complaint activity — ask if there is a family council you can speak with
  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • Inspection score is low — ask for the most recent state survey results
  • Penalty history present — ask what enforcement actions occurred and outcomes
  • Serious-harm citations on record — require a written explanation of corrective action
  • Always speak with at least two current residents or family members independently

📈 Score History

The score is recalculated every time CMS releases updated data (typically monthly). A consistent downward trend is more concerning than a single low score. An improving trend after a period of poor performance may indicate management changes are taking effect. Use the free facility-watch form above to get email alerts when this facility's record changes materially.

2026-05-27
61 — Fair

🏢 Ownership & Operators

Ownership matters because large corporate chains sometimes prioritize cost controls over care quality. CMS requires every nursing home to disclose its owners, operators, and managing employees. Frequent ownership changes can disrupt staffing and operations — which is why we flag facilities that changed ownership in the past 12 months.

🔗 ULBERT, LISA operates 28 facilities across IL, IN. This is a large operator — consider researching their overall network quality.
Owner / Operator Role Ownership % Effective
ULBERT, LISA Individual 1970-01-01
SPECTOR, JENNIFER Individual 1970-01-01
BERKOWITZ, DAVID Individual 1970-01-01
CAMPBELL, CRYSTAL Individual 1970-01-01
FRANKEL, FREDERICK Individual 1970-01-01
MEYSTEL, JAY Individual 1970-01-01
ANCONA, CECILA Individual 1970-01-01
SERNA, JEFFERY Individual 1970-01-01
TUROFSKY, STEVEN Individual 1970-01-01
ALLIE, ANN Individual 1970-01-01
GOLDFARB, BRIAN Individual 1970-01-01
WILHELM, NAFTALI Individual 1970-01-01
HAMUI, MORIEL Individual 1970-01-01
257, LP Organization 1970-01-01
JAY MEYSTEL TRUST Organization 1970-01-01
MEYSTEL, YOSEF Individual 1970-01-01
DAVID A BERKOWITZ REVOC TR DAVID BERKOWITZ TTEE Organization 1970-01-01
APERION CARE EXEC HOLDINGS LLC Organization 1970-01-01
APERION CARE INC Organization 1970-01-01
CURIS SERVICES LLC Organization 1970-01-01
JOSHUA HOFFMAN TR JOSHUA HOFFMAN TTEE Organization 1970-01-01
APERION CONSULTING, LLC Organization 1970-01-01
1219, LP Organization 1970-01-01
YOSEF MEYSTEL DECLARATION OF TR OF YOSEF MEYSTEL TTEE Organization 1970-01-01
1415 W FOSTER AVE LLC Organization 1970-01-01
HOFFMAN, JOSHUA Individual 1970-01-01
42170, LP Organization 1970-01-01

🔔 Monthly tracking is now free

We check CMS data monthly. Use the tracking form above and we will email you when new citations appear, scores change, or enforcement actions are added.

📋
Monthly report update
New citation alerts
📈
Score trend tracking
🏠 Verify this data on Medicare.gov
All data in this report comes from the CMS Care Compare database. You can review the official public record directly on Medicare.gov — including the full inspection narrative, star ratings, and any recent enforcement actions.
View on Medicare.gov ↗

This report reflects publicly available CMS data only and is updated monthly. Severity codes and narratives are reproduced directly from the CMS health inspection database. Senior Care Report Card scores are independently computed and are not affiliated with or endorsed by CMS or Medicare.gov.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Senior Care Report Card safety score for Aperion Care Wesley?
Aperion Care Wesley has an independently computed Safety Score of 61 out of 100, based on CMS inspection findings, staffing levels, penalty history, complaint volume, and quality measures.
Where is Aperion Care Wesley located?
Aperion Care Wesley is located in Chicago, IL. View the full address, phone number, and a map at the top of this report.
How many beds does Aperion Care Wesley have?
Aperion Care Wesley is certified for 108 beds in the CMS Care Compare dataset.
When was the most recent CMS health inspection at Aperion Care Wesley?
The most recent CMS health inspection summarized in this report was completed on March 6, 2026. CMS publishes a new inspection cycle approximately every 12 months.
What does the Senior Care Report Card Safety Score measure?
The Safety Score (0-100) combines five public-data signals: CMS health inspection severity, nursing staffing hours per resident, civil monetary penalties, complaint counts, and quality measures. Methodology and weightings are documented at /how-it-works/.
Is the report on Aperion Care Wesley affiliated with the facility?
No. This report is independently computed from public CMS Care Compare data and is not affiliated with Aperion Care Wesley, CMS, or Medicare.gov. It is provided as a research aid for families.

Data source: CMS Care Compare · Methodology · State Ombudsman

This report uses public CMS nursing home data and simplified scoring to help families ask better questions. It is not a recommendation, ranking, medical opinion, legal opinion, or substitute for an in-person visit. Source data last published by CMS: May 27, 2026.