IllinoisChicago

Balmoral Home

2055 West Balmoral Avenue, Chicago, IL 60625 · Cook County · 213 certified beds · avg 178 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1994 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
1.65
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · May 22, 2026 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: May 29, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 18, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Feb 28, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (28)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 28, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
May 22, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
May 22, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · from a complaint
Mar 22, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Mar 22, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Nov 26, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint
Apr 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Apr 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Mar 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Dec 4, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Feb 18, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jan 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Jan 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Mar 10, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Mar 10, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Mar 10, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Mar 10, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 10, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Mar 10, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202360D
2024131G ▲
202540D
202651G ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityIllinois avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)1.652.993.95bottom 2% in Illinois; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.310.630.69bottom 18% in Illinois; bottom 10% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing1.532.673.50bottom 3% in Illinois; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.300.560.48bottom 21% in Illinois; bottom 31% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)43.744.545.8bottom 49% in Illinois; top 46% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)46.241.842.9bottom 41% in Illinois; bottom 42% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 2.11, RN 0.39, weekend 1.95. Staffing rating: 1/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Joseph a Mermelstein Trust DTD 7/15/99Organization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%06/28/2018
Marvin Mermelstein Family TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/18/2018
Joseph a Mermelstein Trust DTD 7/15/99OrganizationTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/18/2018
Klein, TomIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2019
Klein, TomIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2019
Mermelstein Investment Partners LPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2021
Stern, YonathanIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/18/2018
Stern, YonathanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/18/2018
Stern, YonathanIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/18/2018

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Continental Nursing & Rehab Center0.4 miChicago, IL★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Aperion Care Wesley0.8 miChicago, IL★☆☆☆☆1/5
Park View Rehab Center0.9 miChicago, IL★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Foster Health & Rehab Center1.0 miChicago, IL★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
All American Vlge Nrsg & RHB1.1 miChicago, IL★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Ryze at the Ridge1.4 miChicago, IL★☆☆☆☆2/5
Complete Care at Sheriden Commons1.4 miChicago, IL★★★☆☆3/5
Complete Care at Margate Park1.4 miChicago, IL★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Admiral at the Lake, the1.4 miChicago, IL★★★★☆4/5
Mado Healthcare - Uptown1.4 miChicago, IL★☆☆☆☆3/5
Sheridan Village Nrsg & RHB1.5 miChicago, IL★★☆☆☆3/5
Astoria Place Living & Rehab1.5 miChicago, IL★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Chicago →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 145796.