Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around October 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Sands At South Beach Care Center, The during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident repeatedly received cold meals and reported that requests to staff to reheat food were often dismissed or not acted upon, resulting in ongoing dissatisfaction. Another resident also experienced cold food and felt staff would not respond to reheating requests. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent practices regarding reheating food, and facility policy was not consistently followed, leading to a failure to honor resident choice regarding meal temperature.
A resident who is cognitively intact and independent in eating reported consistently receiving cold food, particularly at breakfast, and stated that requests to staff for reheating were often dismissed or not acted upon. Another resident also reported receiving cold food and did not ask for reheating, believing staff would not comply. Staff interviews showed inconsistent awareness of these requests, and the facility's policy to consider resident preferences was not consistently followed.
A resident's mail from a state agency was opened without consent, despite facility policy requiring written consent before opening private mail. The resident, who was cognitively intact and able to make his own decisions, reported the breach of privacy. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent mail handling practices, with the Administrator confirming that a receptionist had opened the mail, contrary to policy.
Staff failed to maintain confidentiality of residents' health information by leaving computer screens with resident data and medication bags labeled with resident names unattended and visible. Both an LPN and the DON were observed leaving sensitive information exposed, contrary to facility policy requiring protection of electronic protected health information.
A resident with a feeding tube and compromised kidney function was given Glucerna 1.2 formula instead of the ordered Jevity 1.5, despite clear care plan and physician orders. Staff failed to verify the correct formula during rounds, and the error was only identified during a survey observation. The facility's policy for implementing person-centered care plans was not followed.
Failure to Provide Food at Resident-Requested Temperature
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident reported consistently receiving cold food, particularly at breakfast, and stated that requests to staff, especially Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs), to reheat the food were often met with responses that they were too busy or that the microwave was too far away. The resident, who is cognitively intact and independent in eating, indicated that this issue had been ongoing for months and that previous complaints to kitchen staff had not resulted in any changes. During observation, the resident was found eating in his room and reiterated his dissatisfaction with the temperature of the food. Another resident also reported that vegetables served at lunch were cold and unappetizing, and that breakfast was lukewarm. This resident expressed reluctance to request reheating, believing that staff would not comply. Observations confirmed that the food on the breakfast tray was not at an appropriate temperature. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistent responses: one CNA stated that if a resident requested reheating, the nurse would be notified and the food would be reheated in the pantry, while another CNA recalled having reheated food for the resident in the past, particularly when the resident missed meal service due to sleeping or being out for appointments. Other staff, including a Registered Nurse and the Social Services Director, reported no recollection of complaints from the resident regarding cold food. Review of facility policy indicated that meals should be nourishing, palatable, and considerate of resident preferences, but the observations and interviews demonstrated that the facility failed to consistently provide food at the temperature requested by the resident, thereby not supporting resident self-determination and choice as required.
Plan Of Correction
Corrective Action: Resident #104 and #04 were visited by the Director of Nursing and Food Service Director to determine if the resident's meal was served at an appropriate temperature and to their liking on 07/25/2025. Resident #104 and #04 stated that the meals are being served at the right temperature per their request. Staff A, B, and C were given a one-to-one education by the Director of Nursing regarding the importance of providing residents with meals at an appropriate heated temperature per their request. Identification of Residents: All residents in the facility have the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. Systemic Changes: Ongoing in-services were initiated on 07/25/2025 by the Director of Nursing/designee to direct care staff regarding providing meals at appropriate temperatures per resident's request. The Interdisciplinary Team will conduct daily random rounds in resident rooms and dining rooms to ensure that residents are receiving their meals at an appropriate temperature per resident's preference. Meal temperatures will be discussed at the next Resident Council meeting per the resident's invitation, where the Dietician and/or designee will review and update any concerns with residents to ensure meals are served at an appropriate temperature per resident preference. Monitoring: The Director of Nursing and Food Service Director will conduct random food observation audits to check that food is served at temperatures per resident's preference. This audit will be conducted daily for 5 days, then weekly for eleven weeks to ensure that resident meals leave the dietary department at the correct temperature and are served to residents at an appropriate temperature per resident's preference. The results and findings from the audits will be reviewed and reported to the QAPI committee monthly for 3 months to ensure continued substantial compliance. Resident Council meeting per the resident's invitation, where the Dietician and/or designee will review and update any concerns with residents to ensure meals are served at an appropriate temperature per resident's preference. Monitoring: The Director of Nursing and Food Service Director will conduct random food observation audits to check that food is served at temperatures per resident's preference. This audit will be conducted daily for 5 days, then weekly for eleven weeks to ensure that resident meals leave the dietary department at the correct temperature and are served to residents at an appropriate temperature per resident's preference. The results and findings from the audits will be reviewed and reported to the QAPI committee monthly for 3 months to ensure continued substantial compliance.
Failure to Provide Food at Resident's Preferred Temperature
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food at an appropriate temperature according to a resident's preference, as required by their rights to choice and personal decision. One resident, who is cognitively intact and independent in eating, reported that receiving cold food, especially at breakfast, was a daily occurrence. The resident stated that requests to staff, particularly CNAs, to reheat food were often met with responses that staff were too busy or that the microwave was too far away. The resident also indicated that previous complaints to kitchen staff had not resulted in any changes. Another resident also reported receiving cold and unappetizing food and expressed reluctance to ask staff for reheating, believing the request would not be fulfilled. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent responses regarding whether the resident had requested food to be reheated. One CNA recalled reheating the resident's lunch upon request, particularly when the resident missed the initial meal service due to sleeping. Other staff members, including CNAs and an RN, either did not recall such requests or stated that the resident had not complained to them. The facility's policy requires that residents be provided with nourishing, palatable, and well-balanced diets that consider individual preferences, but observations and interviews indicated this was not consistently achieved for at least one resident.
Plan Of Correction
Corrective Action: Resident #104 and #04 were visited by the Director of Nursing and Food Service Director to determine if the resident's meal was served at an appropriate temperature and to their liking on 07/25/2025. Resident #104 and #04 stated that the meals are being served at the right temperature per their request. Staff A, B, and C were given a one-to-one education by the Director of Nursing regarding the importance of providing residents with meals at an appropriate heated temperature per their request. Identification of Residents: All residents in the facility have the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. Systemic Changes: Ongoing in-services were initiated on 07/25/2025 by the Director of Nursing/designee to direct care staff regarding providing meals at appropriate temperatures per resident's request. The Interdisciplinary Team will conduct daily random rounds in resident rooms and dining rooms to ensure that residents are receiving their meals at an appropriate temperature per resident's preference. Meal temperatures will be discussed at the next Resident Council meeting per the resident's invitation, where the Dietician and/or designee will review and update any concerns with residents to ensure meals are served at an appropriate temperature per resident preference. Monitoring: The Director of Nursing and Food Service Director will conduct random food observation audits to check that food is served at temperatures per resident preference. This audit will be conducted daily for five days, then weekly for eleven weeks to ensure that resident meals leave the dietary department at the correct temperature and are served to residents at an appropriate temperature per resident's preference. The results and findings from audits will be reviewed and reported to the QAPI committee monthly for three months to ensure continued substantial compliance.
Failure to Ensure Resident Mail Privacy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the privacy of a resident's mail, as mail addressed to the resident was opened without his consent. According to the facility's Mail/Package Screening Policy, mail should only be opened with written consent from the resident, and mail from federal or state agencies should not be opened. The resident, who had no cognitive impairment and was able to make his own decisions, reported receiving a letter from a state agency that had already been opened when it was delivered to him. He stated that he had previously informed staff to respect his privacy and not open his mail. Interviews with facility staff revealed inconsistencies in mail handling practices. The Director of Social Services acknowledged the resident's request not to have his packages opened and stated that staff encourage residents to open their own mail for safety reasons. The Recreation Therapy Director and the Administrator both indicated that mail is typically delivered unopened, but the Administrator admitted that the receptionist had opened a letter from a state agency addressed to the resident and brought it to his attention. The receptionist, however, denied opening any resident mail. This incident demonstrates a failure to follow established policies and procedures regarding resident mail privacy.
Failure to Safeguard Resident Health Information
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to maintain the confidentiality of residents' personal and medical records on the second floor, as evidenced by multiple observations of unattended computer screens displaying residents' information and visible medication bags labeled with resident names. Specifically, during a blood glucose check, an LPN left a medication bag with a resident's name and physician order visible on top of the medication cart and also left the computer screen open with residents' information displayed. The LPN acknowledged awareness of the protocol to lock the screen but did not follow it at the time. Additionally, the Director of Nursing (DON) was observed leaving the computer screen at the south nursing station open with residents' information visible while stepping away to print requested information. The DON acknowledged the privacy concern when it was brought to her attention, stating it was a mistake. Review of the facility's policy confirmed that electronic protected health information (e-PHI) is to be safeguarded to prevent unauthorized access.
Failure to Implement Physician-Ordered Enteral Feeding Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with a history of acute kidney failure, dysphagia, and a feeding tube was observed receiving Glucerna 1.2 calorie formula instead of the physician-ordered Jevity 1.5 calorie formula. The care plan and physician orders specified Jevity 1.5 at 50 ml/hr for 20 hours, with water flushes as ordered, due to the resident's compromised kidney function. Despite these orders, staff administered Glucerna, which was not recommended by the Registered Dietitian because of the resident's abnormal kidney labs. The error was discovered during a survey observation, with photographic evidence confirming the incorrect formula in use. Interviews with staff revealed that the LPN on duty did not verify the feeding formula during morning rounds, and the previous shift had hung the Glucerna. The DON stated that department heads and floor nurses are responsible for checking enteral feedings daily, but this protocol was not followed. The RN Unit Manager also acknowledged seeing the feeding in progress but did not confirm it matched the physician's order. The facility's policy requires comprehensive, person-centered care plans with measurable objectives to be implemented, but this was not adhered to in this instance.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 250 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 3 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Miami Beach
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ponce Health And Rehabilitation Center | 4.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Riverside Care Center | 4.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Victoria Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. | 4.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| University Health And Rehabilitation Center | 4.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Jackson Gardens Health And Rehabilitation Center | 5 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Sands At South Beach Care Center, The.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.