300 Royal Tower Drive, Birmingham, AL 35209 (opens Google Maps) · Jefferson County · (205) 870-5666· 143 certified beds · avg 121 residents/day · certified since Nov 3, 2005 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · how star ratings work →
⚠ The most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Showing the latest 3 of 22 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint F-0610
The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint F-0580
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint F-0584
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Aug 13, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Aug 13, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint · F-0812 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · from a complaint · F-0882 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint · F-0908 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0645 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint · F-0690 |
| Nov 20, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Nov 20, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Nov 20, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0880 |
| Nov 8, 2018 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Nov 8, 2018 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0761 |
| Nov 8, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637 |
| Nov 8, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0656 |
| Nov 8, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Nov 8, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Nov 8, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 9).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2019 | 3 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 12 | 0 | F |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $6,682.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2024 | Fine | $6,682 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Alabama avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.08 | 4.43 | 3.95 | bottom 31% in Alabama; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.63 | 0.74 | 0.69 | bottom 31% in Alabama; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.71 | 3.73 | 3.50 | top 48% in Alabama; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.41 | 0.36 | 0.48 | top 29% in Alabama; top 46% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 52.4 | 46.9 | 45.8 | bottom 33% in Alabama; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 57.9 | 39.5 | 42.9 | bottom 15% in Alabama; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 3.28, RN 0.51, weekend 2.98.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.28 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Elite Nursing and Rehabilitation Care Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaplan, Yisroel | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Aschendorf, Jonathan | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2023 |
| Aschendorf, Jonathan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2023 |
| Aschendorf, Jonathan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2023 |
| Bell, Tisha | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/19/2021 |
| Bell, Tisha | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/19/2021 |
| Kaplan, Yisroel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/19/2021 |
| Paisley, Peyton | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/03/2023 |
| Paisley, Peyton | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/03/2023 |
All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brookdale University Park SNF (al) | 1.7 mi | Birmingham, AL | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| South Health and Rehabilitation, LLC | 2.8 mi | Birmingham, AL | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Greenbriar at the Altamont Skilled Nursing Facilit | 2.9 mi | Birmingham, AL | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Aspire Physical Recovery Center at Cahaba River | 3.1 mi | Vestavia, AL | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Aspire Physical Recovery Center at Hoover, LLC | 4.5 mi | Hoover, AL | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Fair Haven | 4.7 mi | Birmingham, AL | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| South Haven Health and Rehabilitation, LLC | 4.7 mi | Birmingham, AL | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Civic Center Health and Rehabilitation, LLC | 5.0 mi | Birmingham, AL | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Arlington Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center | 5.1 mi | Birmingham, AL | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| St Martin's in the Pines | 5.2 mi | Irondale, AL | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Northway Health and Rehabilitation, LLC | 5.3 mi | Birmingham, AL | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Oak Knoll Health and Rehabilitation, LLC | 5.6 mi | Birmingham, AL | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Jefferson, AL — 34 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 015455.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details