Diversicare Of Arab
235 Third Street SE, Arab, AL 35016 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 87 certified beds · (256) 586-3111 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 5 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 improved from 1 to 3 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 | 4.9% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.7% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.4% | 1.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| 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 | 3.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.6% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.8% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.0% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.7% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.3% | 21.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.1% | 80.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.1% | 24.8% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.8% | 11.3% | 12.0% | worse |
‡ 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.
58.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 79 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.2% 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 44 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% 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 | 58.0%CMS range 46.9–68.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.3%CMS range 7.8–16.5 | 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 | 68.2% | 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 | 72.7% | 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 | 65.9% | 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 | 92.7% | 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 | 95.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.6% | 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 | 3.6% | 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 | 6.2%CMS range 3.1–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.72 | 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 87 beds and averages 83.3 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 2.97 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.97 is below 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 2.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.17 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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 5 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-04-15 · 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, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a sanitary manner creating the risk for foodborne illness to 75 of 78 residents (three residents received nutrition from tube feeding) residing in the facility. Kitchen flooring, surfaces, and areas were not sanitary and were in need of cleaning and repairs. Findings include: 1.The initial kitchen inspection was conducted with the Employee Identifier (EI) #27, Dietary Supervisor on 04/12/21 from 9:59 AM - 10:20 AM The following concerns were noted during the initial inspection: a. Can opener -The can opener was observed with a layer of accumulated black residue on the cutting blade. b. Large stainless-steel shelf - A large stainless-steel shelf attached to the stainless-steel table/counter (located a few inches above the floor) was observed to be completely covered in rust. A shelf liner partially covered the shelf; however, approximately 20% of the shelf was not covered by the liner. Sheet pans were stored in a rack directly on the rusted portion of 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 before2021-04-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 observations, interviews, record review, policy review, and Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidance the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were implemented to prevent the potential spread of infection. The facility failed to enforce the practice that required staff and residents to wear a mask appropriately to cover the nose and mouth when in close contact with others and in general population areas of the facility. Resident Identifier (RI) #41, RI #5, RI #70, and RI #66 failed to follow guidance to wear a mask to cover both mouth and nose when out of their room. Eighteen of 25 Residents who resided on the secure unit ate meals in a dining room without maintaining social distance and staff failed to direct residents to wear a mask per guidance. All residents on the secure unit received the vaccine to protect them from the Coronavirus. The facility failed to maintain a catheter in a sanitary manner for one of two residents (RI #3) reviewed for catheter care. Failure to follow…
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 · E2021-04-15 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement 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 interview, observation, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to identify target behaviors, monitor for the target behaviors for antipsychotic medications, ensure a stop date for an as needed (PRN) anti-anxiety medication and provide indications for use for three of six residents (Residents (RI) #4, RI #41, and RI #131.) This failure had the potential to cause residents to receive psychotropic medications without proper indications for use or monitoring for effectiveness. Findings include: 1. RI #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] according to the admission Record located under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR.) According to the Diagnosis's list located on her admission Record in the Profile tab in the EMR revealed she was admitted with diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance and hallucinations. Under the Orders tab in the EMR revealed RI #41 was prescribed an antipsychotic medication for bipolar or schizophrenia, quetiapine…
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 · E2021-04-15 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the menus were followed. Ten residents prescribed pureed diets (Resident Identifiers (RI) #24, RI #75, RI #27, RI #7, RI #46, RI #38, RI #3, RI #25, RI #2, RI #43) were not served pureed bread as directed on the menu during two of two meals observed. In addition, condiments indicated on the menu such as salt, pepper, and margarine were not served to residents on the 300 Hall during two of two meals observed. Three of 22 residents who ate meals on the 300 Hall RI #67, RI#79, RI#56) stated they would like to be served salt, pepper, and/or margarine with their meals. Findings include: 1. The Week 2 Diet Spreadsheet and Week at a Glance Menu (both undated) revealed lunch on Monday (4/12/21) for residents on regular diets consisted of: swiss steak, parly (sic) potatoes, brussel sprouts, vanilla pudding, and dinner roll/margarine. According to the Week at a Glance Menu, residents on pureed diets were to be served: pureed swiss steak with gravy, pureed parly (sic) potatoes, pureed brussel…
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 · D2021-04-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to assess and implement interventions after one of three sampled resident reviewed for falls in sample of 20 residents (Resident Identifier (RI) #54) fell on [DATE] and sustained a laceration to her forehead. The facility failed to obtain vital signs, document in nurse's notes, and complete a thorough post fall assessment to determine the root cause of the fall, and determine if new interventions were necessary, putting the resident at risk for additional falls. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Falls Clinical Care System Guidelines for Falls, dated February 2017, revealed the purpose was, to establish a process that identifies risk and establishes interventions to mitigate the occurrence of falls. After a fall occurred, the following steps were to be taken, in pertinent part: -The post fall evaluation is completed to assist in developing interventions to prevent future falls. -The fall event 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 · D2021-04-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to store all drugs in locked compartments in one (100 Hallway) of three lockable medication carts. The facility reported 51 residents residing in the 100 and 300 hallways that had potential access to the unlocked medications. Findings include: 1. On 04/12/21 at 9:45 AM an Employee Identifier (EI)#2 Director of Nursing (DON) was escorting the survey team to the conference room when observation of the medication cart parked by the 100-hall nursing station with the unlocked drawers containing medication toward the hallway.The surveyor pointed out to EI#2 the cart was unlocked. EI#24 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was present in the nurses' station with the medication cart unlocked but the unlocked cart was out of her view. EI#2 instructed EI#24 to lock the cart. EI#2 nodded her head in acknowledgement the medication cart was unlocked and out of the view of EI#24. On 04/15/21 at 9:55 AM the 100-hall medication cart was observed to be unattended and unlocked parked by the 100-hall nursing station with 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 · D2019-02-06 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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, interview, and review of a facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) washed hands and changed gloves during wound care for Resident Identfier (RI) #64, between handling dirty and clean items. This affected one of two sampled residents for whom wound care was observed. Findings include: Review of an undated facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revealed the following: Policy This center considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. Policy Interpretation and Implementation .5. Use an alcohol-based hand rub or, alternatively, soap . and water for the following situations: g. Before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc. (et cetera); .j. After handling used dressings . RI #64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 2/06/19 at 10:08 AM Employee Identifier (EI) #3, RN, was observed performing wound care for RI #64's stage three pressure ulcer. During the care, EI #3 removed 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 · F2018-03-01 · 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, a facility policy titled, Waste Control and the Food Code, the facility failed to ensure the top on one of two dumpsters was not broken and partially opened. This was observed on 2/28/18, and had the potential to affect all 76 residents in the facility. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Waste Control with an effective date of August 1, 2012, documented the following: .It is the policy of this facility to store garbage and trash in a sanitary manner until disposed of properly for infection control . A review of the Food Code 2013 documented the following: .5-501.13 (A) receptacles and waste handling units for REFUSE, shall be insect-and rodent-resistant .5-501.15 Outside Receptacles (A) Receptacles and waste handling units for REFUSE, .shall be designed and constructed to have tight-fitting lids, doors, or covers . 5-501.110 Storing Refuse, Recyclables, and Returnable's REFUSE, .shall be stored in receptacles or waste handling units so that they are inaccessible to insects and rodents .5-501.111 Areas, Enclosures, 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 before2018-03-01 · 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 observations, interviews, medical record review and review of a facility document titled, Infection Control Guide, the facility failed to ensure licensed staff: 1. did not place a glucometer in her pocket before obtaining a fingerstick blood sugar (FSBS) for Resident Identifier (RI) #54, 2. did not place gloves on an overbed table for use during RI #54's FSBS, 3. did not place a medication cup of liquid medication inside a medication cup of pill medications for RI #27, and 4. did not touch the handle of a scoop for protein powder with her bare hand and then place the scoop back into the container during medication administration for RI #174. These deficient practices affected RI #54, RI #27 and RI #174, three of seven residents and three of five nurses observed during medication pass observation. Findings Include: A review of a facility document titled, Infection Control Guide revealed: .Standard precautions are the recommended practice for the care of all patients and residents receiving care within…
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 · Ccited before2018-03-01 · 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 observation, interview, an unnamed facility policy and the Food Code, the facility failed to ensure three cycles of dishwashing reached the required temperature of 150 degrees (F) Fahrenheit . This was observed on 2/28/18 and had the potential to affect all 76 residents in the facility. Findings Include: A review of an untitled, undated facility policy, documented the following: .Wash Temperature Minimum Wash 150 F . A review of the Food Code 2013 documented the following: .4-501.110 Mechanical Warewashing Equipment, Wash Solution Temperature. (A) The temperature of wash solution in spray type warewashers that use hot water to sanitize may not be less than: .(2) For a stationary rack, dual temperature machine .150 (degrees) F . 02/28/18 at 1:38 p.m. three cycles of dishwashing were observed with the following temperatures recorded: 143 F, 147 F and 149 degrees F . An interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #1, Dietary Supervisor, on 2/28/18 at 1:45 p.m. EI #1 was asked what temperature the wash cycle should be. EI #1 replied 150 degrees for the wash cycle. EI…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE — 44 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 43; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIVERSICARE LEASING COMPANY III LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2016 |
| ADVOCAT FINANCE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2016 |
| DAC NEWCORP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/04/2022 |
| DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/04/2022 |
| DIVERSICARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2016 |
| SHADDRIX, MANDY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/05/2024 |
| KELLMAN, FRANKLIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/13/2024 |
| KOHN, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/19/2021 |
| RATNER, ERAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/13/2024 |
| BODIE, REBECCA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/02/2020 |
| NEE, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/20/2023 |
| WEISHAAR, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2003 |
| DMS GP LLC | Organization | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 04/04/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners 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 70% 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. This home reported $445K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 015148. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2021-04-15, 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.