← Back to search results

EAST BANK CENTER, LLC

LOVES PARK, IL · Winnebago County · For profit - Limited Liability company · 54 certified beds

📍 6131 Park Ridge Road, Loves Park, IL 61111  ·  📞 (815) 633-6810

Medicare ID: 146069  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Mar 17, 2026

Overall Safety Score
85
out of 100
Strong Safety Record
Component Scores
77
Inspection
100
Staffing
✓ Clean
Enforcement
85
Complaints
50
Quality
📋 Last inspected: March 17, 2026 📦 CMS data as of: May 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
77
Staffing
100
Enforcement
100
Complaints
85
Quality Outcomes
50

What the numbers mean

EAST BANK CENTER, LLC scored 85 out of 100 — 29 points above the state average of 56.

📋 Inspections: 50 citations over the last 36 months — 7 more than the state average (43). 1 was rated serious (G+) — an inspector determined it caused or risked harm to a resident. 4 findings recurred across inspection cycles — indicating a problem that was not fixed.

👥 Staffing: Staffing levels are strong — RN hours and total nurse hours per resident are in the favorable range. Adequate staffing is one of the most important factors in resident safety.

⚖️ Penalties & enforcement: No significant federal fines or enforcement actions on record — a positive indicator of consistent regulatory compliance.

💬 Complaints: Low complaint activity — few formal complaints from residents or families have triggered inspections. Ask if there is a family council you can speak with.

⚠️ Resident quality outcomes: Some quality measures are below national benchmarks. Areas like fall prevention, pain management, or medication use may warrant closer attention.

🔍 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 fire alarms, smoke detectors, alarm testing, or alarm outage procedures. These systems warn staff and residents when fire or smoke is detected.. The full report provides the complete citation record with dates, severity levels, and plain-English descriptions.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

50
Total citations
State avg: 42.9
1
Serious (G+)
State avg: 4.1
4
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

28
6
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.
4
Fire Alarm & Smoke Detection
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.

⚖ 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.

No federal penalties on record. CMS has not issued civil monetary penalties or payment denials against this facility in the current reporting period.
📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
Clean enforcement record — No significant federal enforcement actions or fines on record for this facility. This is a positive indicator.
✅ No enforcement actions on record. This facility's enforcement score of 100/100 reflects a clean enforcement history in the current CMS reporting cycle.

📅 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.

Re-hospitalized after discharge
32.6% 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
19.7% 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 East Bank Center, Llc

East Bank Center, Llc is a Medicare-certified nursing home in Loves Park, Il with 54 certified beds. Its current Senior Care Report Card score is 85/100, placing it in the Strong Safety Record range. The latest CMS survey date in our data is Mar 17, 2026. Over the last 36 months, our CMS citation data shows 50 citations, including 1 serious finding and 4 repeat findings. Families comparing this facility should pay close attention to quality outcomes before scheduling a tour or accepting placement. Ownership type on file: For profit - Limited Liability company.

Overall Assessment — Strong Safety Record  ·  85/100
This facility has a strong inspection and compliance record — a good starting point for families.
What to do next: Recommended for consideration. Still visit in person and speak with current residents and family members.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Some deficiencies on record. Review Section D to see what was cited.
👥 Staffing
Staffing levels are adequate — RN hours and nurse-to-resident ratios meet or exceed benchmarks.
⚖ Penalties
No significant federal enforcement actions or fines in the record.
💬 Complaints
Complaint activity is low — few formal complaints filed by residents or families.
Multiple quality measures are below national benchmarks. Ask management directly about resident care practices.
⚠ Serious Findings on Record: 1 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 100
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 77
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 100
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 85
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 50
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.
85 56 ▲ Better than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
77 44 ▲ Better than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
100 52 ▲ Better than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
100 46 ▲ Better than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
85 76 ▲ Better than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
50 68 ▼ Worse than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
50 42.9 ▼ Worse than state avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
1 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.

2026-03-17
1 citations
2025-07-24
10 citations
2025-06-26
2 citations
2025-04-03
2 citations
2025-01-09
1 citations
2024-10-22
3 citations
2024-09-11
15 citations
2024-02-06
1 citations
2023-08-09
1 citations
2023-08-03
14 citations  (1 serious)

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: 2026-03-17 1 citation(s)
F0921 No harm, could worsen
F0921
Survey: 2025-07-24 10 citation(s)
F0812 No harm, could worsen
Food sanitation & safety
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
K0372 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: smoke barriers must be maintained
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.
F0561 No harm, could worsen
Grievance process
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
Survey: 2025-06-26 2 citation(s)
F0806 No harm, could worsen
Resident food choice
F0805 No harm, could worsen
Food frequency & variety
Survey: 2025-04-03 2 citation(s)
F0680 No harm, could worsen
F0680
F0679 No harm, could worsen
Activities program
Survey: 2025-01-09 1 citation(s)
F0658 No harm, could worsen
Services meet professional standards
Survey: 2024-10-22 3 citation(s)
K0711 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: evacuation and fire response plan
The facility had a problem with fire drills, evacuation planning, staff preparedness, or documentation showing that staff know what to do in an emergency.
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.
K0911 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: emergency power system
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.
Survey: 2024-09-11 15 citation(s)
E0015 No harm, could worsen
E0015
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.
K0281 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: emergency lighting
The facility had a problem with exits, stairways, emergency lighting, or evacuation routes that residents and staff may need during a fire or emergency.
F0908 No harm, could worsen
Essential equipment & supplies
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.
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.
K0351 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: sprinkler system installation
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.
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.
F0692 No harm, could worsen
Nutrition & hydration status
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
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.
F0758 No harm, could worsen
Unnecessary psychotropic drugs
F0686 No harm, could worsen
Pressure ulcer prevention & treatment
F0755 No harm, could worsen
Pharmaceutical services
K0223 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: doors must resist smoke and fire spread
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.
🩹

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.

Short Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Worsening depression symptoms
0.2% 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…
100.0% lower is better
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Emergency room visits (short-stay)
98.6% 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
32.6% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 28.1% Expected: 20.6%
▲ Higher than expected — worth asking about
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)
19.7% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 17.7% Expected: 10.1%
▲ Higher than expected — worth asking about
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.

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. Can you walk us through the findings from your most recent state inspection and explain how each citation was addressed?
  2. Some resident outcome measures are below average here. What is your current approach to fall prevention, pain management, and quarterly medication review?
  3. 1 citation 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?
  4. 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

  • Inspection record is above average — verify improvements are maintained
  • Staffing levels appear adequate — ask about weekend and night coverage
  • No significant penalty history — a positive indicator of consistent compliance
  • Low complaint activity — ask if there is a family council you can speak with
  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • 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
85 — Excellent

🏢 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.

🔗 PALAZZO, JAMES operates 1 facility across .
Owner / Operator Role Ownership % Effective
PALAZZO, JAMES Individual 1970-01-01
ADVANCED MANAGEMENT COMPANY Organization 1970-01-01
DALE, JAMES Individual 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 East Bank Center, Llc?
East Bank Center, Llc has an independently computed Safety Score of 85 out of 100, based on CMS inspection findings, staffing levels, penalty history, complaint volume, and quality measures.
Where is East Bank Center, Llc located?
East Bank Center, Llc is located in Loves Park, IL. View the full address, phone number, and a map at the top of this report.
How many beds does East Bank Center, Llc have?
East Bank Center, Llc is certified for 54 beds in the CMS Care Compare dataset.
When was the most recent CMS health inspection at East Bank Center, Llc?
The most recent CMS health inspection summarized in this report was completed on March 17, 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 East Bank Center, Llc affiliated with the facility?
No. This report is independently computed from public CMS Care Compare data and is not affiliated with East Bank Center, Llc, 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.