Henry County Health And Rehabilitation Facility
212 Dothan Road, Abbeville, AL 36310 · Government - County · 142 certified beds · (334) 585-2241 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its last standard health inspection was over 4 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.9% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.5% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.2% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.2% | 1.4% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.2% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.9% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.1% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.2% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.9% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 35.9% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.5% | 80.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.9% | 24.8% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.6% | 11.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.63 | 1.96 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.40 | 1.70 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
61.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 31 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 25.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 35 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 61.6%CMS range 50.6–75.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 6.2–16.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 25.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 25.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 22.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 95.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 7.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.3%CMS range 3.1–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.71 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 142 beds and averages 83.0 residents a day — about 58% occupied, or roughly 59 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.02 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.95 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.32 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.85 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 4 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2022-02-04 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and the facility's Proper Use of Side Rails policy, the facility failed to perform ongoing assessments for the use of side rails for Resident Identifier (RI) #7 to ensure the side rails used met RI #7's needs. This deficient practice affected RI #7, one of one resident reviewed for side rail use. Findings included: The facility admitted Resident Identifier (RI) #7 on 03/17/2014. A review of RI #7's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed severe cognitive impairment. Per the MDS, RI #7 required one-person extensive physical assistance with bed mobility and full staff performance of transfers. The MDS indicated the resident did not walk during the assessment period and did not use a bed rail. A review of RI #7's care plan revealed a problem of self-care deficit related to a history of Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA) with residual effects, with a problem onset date of 03/17/2014. Approaches included a bed with two 3/4 side rails with pads. A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-02-04 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident record review, interviews, and review of the facility's Antipsychotic Medication Use policy, the facility's Behavior Assessment and Monitoring policy, and the facility's Depression - Clinical Protocol policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #31, was monitored for behaviors for which antipsychotic medication was administered and the facility further failed to ensure RI #31 and RI #47 were monitored for side effects of psychotropic medications to include: antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. This affected two of 4 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications who received antipsychotic and antidepressant medication. Findings included: A review of the facility's Antipsychotic Medication Use policy and procedure, dated 09/2009, revealed, . 4. Nursing staff will document in detail an individual's target symptom(s). 14. Nursing Staff will monitor and report any of the following side effects to the Attending Physician: a. Sedation; b. Orthostatic hypotension;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-02-04 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident record review, interviews, and review of the facility's Administering Medication policy, the facility's Administration of Metered-Dose Inhaler policy, and manufacturer's instructions for use, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. The facility had a medication error rate of 9.38%, which resulted from three errors in 32 opportunities and affected Resident Identifier (RI) #52 one of five residents observed receiving medications during the medication administration observation on 02/03/2022. Sixty-nine residents resided in the facility. Findings included: The facility's Administering Medications policy and procedure, dated 02/2014, indicated, . Medications will be administered by a licensed nurse in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. The facility's Administration of Metered-Dose Inhaler policy and procedure, not dated, indicated, . It is the policy of this facility to ensure medications are administered as prescribed, . 11. Instruct resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2019-05-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based observation, interview and review of a facility policy titled, Food Storage in Freezer, the facility failed to ensure that tater tots, okra and sweet potato patties where sealed properly while in the freezer. This was observed on 5/13/2019 and had the potential to effect 101 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Finding include: A review of a facility policy titled, Food Storage in Freezer with a review date of 5/15/19 revealed: . Procedure Frozen Foods: . 3. All foods should be covered , labeled , and dated with delivery date. On 5/13/2019 at 03:19 PM, the surveyor observed a half bag of tarter tots, a half bag of okra in a box and a half bag of sweet potatoes patties inside of a box. The bags were not completely sealed. On 05/15/19 at 10:39 AM, an interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #4, Dietary Director. EI#4 was asked how should food be sealed while in the original container. EI#4 replied, the bag needs to be closed as good as it can. EI #4 was asked, how were the tarter tots, sweet potatoes patties and okra sealed. EI#4 replied, the bags were not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-05-16 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled, Acute Condition Changes- Clinical Protocol 3.12 the facility failed to ensure licensed staff notified the physician of blood glucose greater than 450. This affected Resident Identifier (RI) #88, one of one residence whose blood glucose levels were reviewed. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Acute Condition Changes - Clinical Protocol 3.12, with a reviewed date of 01/18 revealed Assessment and Recognition . 1. As part of the initial assessment, the Physician will help identify individuals with a significant risk for having acute changes of condition during their stay . In addition, the Nurse shall assess and document/report the following . b. Neurological assessment . g. Recent labs . 5. The nursing staff will contact the Physician based on the urgency of of the situation. For emergencies, they will call or page the Physician and request a prompt response (within approximately one-half hour or less . Monitoring and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-05-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the treatment nurse removed her gloves and sanitized her hands after cleaning the wounds for Resident Identifier (RI) #77 and RI #4, and before placing the clean treatment and outer coverings. This affected two of two residents observed for wound care. Findings Include: RI #77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. A review of RI #77's May 2019 Physician Orders revealed .5/13/19 .Clean Stage II to coccyx with Vashe cleanser, apply Multidex powder and cover with border dressing QD (everyday) . On 5/14/19 at 10:18 AM, the surveyor observed wound care for RI #77 performed by Employee Identifier (EI) #2 , Licensed Practical Nurse, Treatment nurse. EI #2 prepared the needed supplies and entered the resident's room. EI #2, washed her hands and put on gloves. The nurse assisting removed the soiled dressing. EI #2 cleaned the wound, then measured the wound. EI #2 used another 4x4 and cleaned the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2018-06-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and a review of facility policies Dry Storage Areas, Record of Food Temperatures, and Temperature Sheet, the facility failed to ensure: 1) peanut butter was not on the lid of the peanut butter container; 2) an opened and used by date was on a container of gravy mix and; 3) the temperature of the pork chops was taken on the tray line before serving to the residents. This had the potential to affect 100 of 107 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1) A review of a facility policy titled, Dry Storage Areas (undated) revealed: Policy: Dry storage areas will be kept in a condition which protects stored food from infestation. .Care of Storeroom .Food storage containers are cleaned after each use. On 06/12/18 at 9:16 a.m., the surveyor along with (Employee Identifier) EI #4 Dietary Director, toured dry storage. The surveyor observed a container of creamy peanut butter with peanut butter on top of the lid. On 6/14/18 at 9:24, an interview was conducted with EI #4, Dietary Director. EI #4 was asked what was on top of a lid of a peanut…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-06-14 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and review of a facility policy Resident Assessment Instrument , the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] and 12/9/17 was coded for hospice care. This affected Resident Identifier (RI) #9, one of three residents sampled for hospice care. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy Resident Assessment Instrument (MDS) with a revised date of 1/18 revealed: .Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 4. The purpose of the assessment is to describe the resident's capability to perform .5. Information derived from the comprehensive assessment enables the staff to plan care . RI #9 was admitted to the facility 9/0/17 with a diagnosis to include Alzheimer's Disease. A review of RI #9's Physician Order dated 9/18/17 revealed .Admit patient to .Hospice with terminal diagnosis of Alzheimers . On 6/13/18 at 9:49 AM a review of RI #9's Significant Change (SC) MDS dated [DATE] and an SC MDS dated [DATE] revealed hospice was not coded under section O - Special…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-06-14 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and a review of a facility policy titled, Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers, the facility failed to ensure staffing report was posted for 6/12/18 and the evening shift was posted on 6/13/18. This had the potential to affect all residents and their family members. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers (undated) revealed: .Policy: It is the policy of this facility to make staffing information readily available in a readable format to residents and visitors at any given time. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: .2. The facility will post the nurse staffing at the beginning of each shift On 6/12/18 at 5:50 PM, an observation of the posted [NAME] County Health and Rehabilitation Facility Direct Care Staff Daily Report revealed the report posted was dated 6/11/18. On 6/13/18 at 4:13 PM, the surveyor observed staffing posted for the morning shift, however the evening shift was not posted. Again at 5:25 PM,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-06-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, this facility failed to ensure that infection control practices were utilized in the preparation of medications for medication delivery for one of 9 residents (Resident Identifier [RI]) #30 observed during medication pass. This deficient practice involved one of five nurses during the medication pass observed to stir crushed medication with her index finger. Findings Include: RI #30 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Gastrostomy status. A review of RI #30's June 2018 Physician Orders revealed : .Two Tums tablets crushed and give .Feosol liquid .CALTRATE D 600 Milligram TABLET . On 6/12/18 at 11:02 AM Employee Identifier (EI) #3, Licensed Practical Nurse, was observed giving RI #30's medication by way of gastrostomy tube. EI #3 prepared each of the medications in separate medication cups. EI #3 crushed medication separately then melted each with water. EI #3 used a plastic spoon to stir the medication and water. EI #3 gathered her supplies and the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2018-06-14 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and a review of a facility policy titled, Disposal of Garbage and Refuse Policy the facility failed to ensure: the dumpsters door lid and door was closed. This had the potential to affect all residents residing at the facility. Findings Include: A reviewer of a facility titled, Disposal of Garbage and Refuse Policy (undated) revealed: Policy: The facility shall properly dispose of kitchen garbage and refuse. Procedures: 7. Refuse containers and dumpsters kept outside the facility shall be designed and constructed to have tightly fitting lids, door, or covers. Containers and dumpsters shall be kept covered when not being loaded. On 6/12/18 at 9:42 a.m., the surveyor along with EI #4 ( Employee Identifier), Dietary Director, observed four dumpsites located outside behind the kitchen. Dumpster number one's door was opened at the side. Dumpster number two's lid was opened at the top of the dumpster. On 6/14/18 at 9:49, an interview was conducted with EI #4 . EI #4 was asked what did she see when looking at dumpster number one on 6/12/18. EI #4 replied,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HENRY COUNTY HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/12/1980 |
| CLEVELAND, HOLLIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/20/2016 |
| GAMBLE, DWIGHT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| KELLEY, DIANNE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/18/2015 |
| MCCOY, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/31/2014 |
| MCNAUGHTON, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/31/2018 |
| SMITH, BETTY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/02/2006 |
| TYE, JUDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/02/2006 |
| VAUGHN, CORA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/13/2013 |
| WEBER, DENNIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/31/2018 |
| HOUSTON, CHARLIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/02/2025 |
| MONEY, MARQUITA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/12/2006 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Alabama Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 015373. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2022-02-04, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.