Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around November 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Solaris Healthcare Parkway during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment was repeatedly observed unable to access the call bell, resulting in unmet needs for assistance. The call bell was often placed out of reach, and the resident was unaware of its location, leading to difficulties in requesting help.
The facility failed to properly anchor indwelling urinary catheter tubing for two residents, despite documented orders and care plans. Both residents were observed multiple times without the required anchoring devices, leading to taut catheter tubing.
The facility failed to ensure competent nurse staff during medication administration for two residents. An LPN administered insulin without a second nurse verification and documented another nurse's initials incorrectly. Another LPN did not follow the proper technique for nasal spray administration.
A resident continued to receive an incorrect dosage of Protonix despite a physician's order to decrease it, due to a lapse in the facility's process for handling pharmacy recommendations.
The facility failed to prepare pureed food with the correct texture for residents with physician-ordered pureed diets. Observations revealed stringy pork and lumpy pasta, which the DFS did not initially taste or acknowledge. Later, the pureed foods served in the dining room had a smoother texture.
Failure to Ensure Accessibility of Call Bell for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accessibility of the call bell for a resident with moderate cognitive impairment. The resident, who required partial to total assistance for activities of daily living, was observed on multiple occasions unable to locate or reach the call bell. During an observation, the resident was found sitting in a wheelchair and unaware of the call bell's location, which was clipped to the upper corner of the bed and out of reach. The resident expressed a need for assistance but was unable to call staff due to the inaccessible call bell. Further observations revealed the resident in bed with the call bell placed in locations that were not easily reachable. Despite being prompted, the resident was unable to navigate his hand to touch the call bell. On another occasion, the resident struggled to drink juice due to a defective straw and was unable to call for assistance until the call bell was placed within sight by the surveyor. The resident demonstrated understanding and ability to use the call bell when it was accessible. The unit manager acknowledged the issue and indicated the need to devise a plan to provide better access to the call bell.
Failure to Anchor Indwelling Urinary Catheters
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the proper anchoring of indwelling urinary catheter tubing for two residents, both of whom had specific medical conditions requiring catheter use. Resident #34, who had a diagnosis of urinary retention, was observed on multiple occasions without an anchoring device for the catheter tubing, which was noted to be taut and coming out of the bottom of the adult brief. Despite a physician's order and care plan approach to secure the catheter with a leg strap, staff did not address the missing anchor during personal care or subsequent observations by the unit manager and ADON. Similarly, Resident #204, who had a history of urinary retention and a recent UTI, was also found without an anchoring device for the urinary catheter tubing during multiple observations. The resident confirmed the absence of the anchor when asked. It was only after a subsequent observation with the ADON that a thigh strap was noted to secure the catheter tubing. Both residents had documented orders and care plans specifying the use of catheter holders to prevent pulling, which were not adhered to by the facility staff.
Failure to Ensure Competent Nurse Staff During Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure competent nurse staff for two residents during medication administration observations. For Resident #49, an LPN administered 7 units of Novolin R insulin without following the facility's process for a second nurse verification. The LPN incorrectly documented the initials of another nurse on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and claimed to have verified the dose with the surveyor, which is against the facility's protocol. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the requirement for a second nurse verification but admitted that it was not a written process, only part of the facility protocols. For Resident #74, another LPN administered a nasal spray without occluding the opposite nostril, contrary to the facility's policy on nasal administration. The policy, revised in January 2018, clearly outlines the procedure for nasal spray administration, including the need to close the opposite nostril. The Risk Manager was informed of this observation, and the policy was reviewed to confirm the correct procedure.
Failure to Implement Pharmacy Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement pharmacy recommendations approved by the physician for a resident. The resident was admitted to the facility and had an order for the anti-reflux medication, Protonix 40 mg, for Anemia. The pharmacist recommended discontinuing the medication after identifying that the resident had been on it for more than 12 weeks. The physician agreed to decrease the dosage to 20 mg daily. However, the resident continued to receive the original 40 mg dosage, and subsequent monthly reviews did not address this discrepancy. During an interview, the Unit Manager explained the process for handling monthly pharmacy reviews, which involves the pharmacist providing the reviews to the Director of Nursing, who then distributes them to the Unit Managers. The Unit Managers are responsible for discussing the recommendations with the physician and entering new orders into the electronic medical records. The Unit Manager was unsure why the physician's order to decrease the Protonix dosage was not implemented, indicating a lapse in the facility's process for handling pharmacy recommendations.
Improper Preparation of Pureed Food
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prepare pureed food with the correct texture, as required for residents with physician-ordered pureed diets. During an observation in the kitchen, it was noted that the pureed Italian Parmesan Breaded Pork and pureed Parslied Noodles did not appear smooth. Upon tasting, the pureed pork contained chopped up strings, and the pureed pasta had lumps. The Director of Food Services (DFS) admitted to usually tasting the pureed food but did not do so on that day. When asked to taste the food, the DFS did not acknowledge the stringy pork or lumpy pasta but stated she would puree the foods again. An observation of the pureed foods served in the main dining room later revealed a smoother texture.
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 40 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — 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 Stuart
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stuart Rehabilitation And Healthcare | 0.6 mi | — | 6 | 0 |
| Waters Edge Health And Rehabilitation | 2.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Palm City Nursing & Rehab Center | 3 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Seabranch Health And Rehabilitation Center | 4.3 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
| Life Care Center Of Port Saint Lucie | 7.3 mi | — | 15 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Solaris Healthcare Parkway.
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 August 2026) and official state health department websites.