Limestone Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC
1600 West Hobbs Street, Athens, AL 35611 · For profit - Corporation · 170 certified beds · (256) 232-3461 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 25% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 6 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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 2 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 | 6.2% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.4% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.0% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.7% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 2.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.8% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 45.9% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.5% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 5.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.9% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.2% | 21.2% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.3% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.4% | 80.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.3% | 24.8% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.3% | 11.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.29 | 1.96 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.00 | 1.70 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
55.9% 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 249 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.4% 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 129 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 55.9%CMS range 49.6–60.6 | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 7.1–12.8 | 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 | 57.4% | 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 | 46.5% | 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 | 62.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 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 | 4.2% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 4.2–10.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 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 170 beds and averages 143.9 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 26 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 3.02 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.50 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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 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 6 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 before2020-02-13 · 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, review of the 2017 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, and review of the facility's policies titled, General Food Preparation and Handling, General Sanitation of Kitchen, Food Storage, Cleaning Dishes/Dish Machine, Cleaning Instructions: Ovens, Cleaning Instructions: Floors, Tables and Chairs, and Cleaning Instructions: Refrigerators, the facility failed to ensure: 1) seven items in the reach in cooler were discarded on the used by date, 2) the floors in the dry food storeroom were clean from rodent droppings, underneath the shelving, 3) there was not a white substance on a pan observed on the clean rack, 4) open food items in the walk-in freezer were sealed, 5) the interior of the walk-in cooler was clean and dry, 6) the convection oven did not have a heavy build-up of dark black residue inside the oven, 7) a pole with chipping, flaking paint was not hanging directly beside and above a food preparation area, and 8) a frying pan did not have a non-stick coating peeling off. This had the potential to affect 149 of 149 residents receiving…
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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 and review of a facility policy titled, Urinary Catheter Care, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #84's Foley catheter bag was in a privacy bag and not visible from the hallway on 02/11/20. This deficient practice affected RI #84, one of one resident sampled with a Foley catheter. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Urinary Catheter Care, with an effective date of 01/16/14, and a supersedes date of 11/01/01, documented: . PROCESS: . i) . Bags should be covered to provide privacy. RI #84 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis to include Neurogenic Bladder. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/22/19, assessed RI #84 as having an indwelling catheter. On 02/11/20 at 10:16 a.m., RI #84's Foley urinary catheter bag was observed uncovered, attached to the left lower side of bed. The bag contained clear yellow urine that was visible from the hallway. On…
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 before2020-02-13 · 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 policy titled Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to ensure: 1) a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) washed hands or used hand sanitizer after administering Resident Identifier (RI) #213's nebulizer treatment and placing a garbage bag in the medication cart garbage can, prior to reentering RI #213's room to clean RI #213's facemask; and 2) a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) washed hands or used hand sanitizer after she emptied RI #105's urinal, prior to exiting RI #105's room. This affected one of four residents observed during medication administration pass and one of one sampled resident for whom a CNA was observed emptying a urinal. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled Hand Hygiene, with a date of 7/30/2016, revealed . Hand Hygiene procedures include the use of alcohol-based hand rubs . and handwashing with soap and water . Always perform hand hygiene in the following situations . Before exiting the patient's care…
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 before2019-03-20 · 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 and review of facility policies titled, FOOD STORAGE, CLEANING DISHES/DISH MACHINE AND CLEANING INSTRUCTIONS OVEN, the facility failed to ensure: 1. a plastic bag of riblets in the refrigerator was labeled with a date and use by date, 2. staff air dried sectional plates; and 3. the main baking oven was free of a thick black substance. This had the potential to affect 128 of 128 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, FOOD STORAGE, with a 2013 date revealed: PROCEDURE: . 14. Refrigerated Food Storage: . f. All foods should be covered, labeled and dated. All foods will be checked to assure that foods (including leftovers) will be consumed by their safe use by dates . A facility policy titled, CLEANING DISHES/DISH MACHINE with a 2013 date revealed: PROCEDURE: . 9. Allow the dishes to air dry on the dish racks. A facility policy titled, CLEANING INSTRUCTIONS: OVENS with a 2017 date revealed: Policy: Ovens will be cleaned as needed . Spills and food particles will be removed after each use. 1. On…
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 before2019-03-20 · 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, interview and review of a facility policy titled, Dressing - Clean, the facility failed to ensure staff gloves were removed and hand hygiene was performed after cleaning a sacral wound and before applying ointment and touching other parts of the resident's body, pillow, blanket and bed remote. This affected Resident Identifier (RI) #65, one of 2 residents observed for wound care. Findings include: A facility policy titled, Dressings-Clean, with an effective date of November 1, 2001, revealed: . Process: . 13. Remove gloves and wash hands. A facility policy titled, Hand Washing, with an effective date of November 1, 2001, revealed: . Standard: Hand washing should be performed between procedures with residents. RI #65 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with two sacral ulcers. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, morbid obesity and paraplegia. Review of the resident's Physician's Orders revealed a new treatment order, dated 3/14/19, to Clean Sacrum Pressure Injury with Normal Saline,…
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 before2018-02-15 · 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 of the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), Employee Identifier (EI) #4, and a record review of the Food Code U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) 2013, the facility failed to assure: 1. adequate immersion time for food preparation equipment sanitized in hot water which measured 175 degrees Fahrenheit (3-compartment sink). 2. effective cleaning/sanitizing of utensils and equipment to prevent the potential growth of foodborne organisms, a. assure dinnerware, sectional plates, was cleaned to sight/touch (machine dishwashing) and air dried, b. assure equipment, a Tea Urn/spigot a non Time/Temperature control for safety, was cleaned every 24 hours. The spigot was observed with a brown solid build-up, 3. the dishmachine, which sanitizes with chemical, maintained chemical efficacy, by testing, monitoring/documenting the concentration prior to use, These failures had the potential to affect all 132 residents receiving meals from the facility's kitchen. Findings include: 1. Review of the 2013 Food Code by the United States…
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 · D2018-02-15 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled RESIDENT SELF ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICATION, the facility failed to ensure Resident #293 was assessed for self-administering nebulizer treatments. This affected one of one resident reviewed for self administration. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled RESIDENT SELF ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICATION, updated 10/31/2017, revealed the following: POLICY: Each resident who desires to self-administer medication may be permitted to do so if Facility Interdisciplinary Care-Plan Team has determined that the practice would be safe for the resident and other residents of the facility. 1. The medication self-administration assessment is conducted by the interdisciplinary team . 2. The results of the interdisciplinary team assessment are recorded on the Self-Administration Assessment Form, which is placed in the resident's medical record. Resident #293 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Flu, Heart…
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 · D2018-02-15 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 of incontinent care on 02/14/18, medical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policies titled Urinary Catheter Care, and a facility document titled Perineal/Catheter Care, the facility failed to ensure the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) properly cleaned Resident #33's catheter tubing. Further, the CNA failed to clean Resident #33's perineal area of fecal matter, prior to the completion of care. These failures were observed during one of one catheter and incontinence care observations. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled: Urinary Catheter Care with an effective date of January 16, 2014 documented: . PURPOSE: Urinary catheter care helps to prevent urinary tract infection . PROCESS: . II. Catheter Care . c) Wash the catheter itself by holding on to the catheter at the insertion site; wash with one stroke downward . A review of a facility document titled: . Perineal/Catheter Care . with a date of 12/18/16 documented: . CATHETER CARE . 2 . Gently . to…
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 · D2018-02-15 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled FOOD PREFERENCES, the facility failed to ensure Resident #117 was served foods in accordance with his/her assessed preferences. This affected one of 132 residents for whom meals were observed. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled FOOD PREFERENCES revealed the following: POLICY: Information will be gathered upon admission to inform the dietary department of the resident/patient's food preferences and diet history. PROCEDURE: 1. Interview the resident for the following information: . *Food preferences, intolerances, allergies . Resident #117 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hyperlipidemia and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease. On 02/14/18 at 12:00 PM, Resident #117 was observed eating the lunch meal. Resident #117 said he/she was not supposed to get any fried foods but did so today. The tray card on Resident #117's lunch tray listed fried foods as a dislike.…
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 before2018-02-15 · 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 of incontinent care on 02/14/2018 and medication administration on 02/13/2018, a review of the facility's policy's titled Urinary Catheter Care and Hand Hygiene, as well as staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure: 1) A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) did not place her ungloved fingers inside medication crush pouches to empty the crushed medications for administration of Resident #58's medications: 2) A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) failed to wash her hands after removing soiled gloves and before putting on clean gloves during the provision of incontinence care. The CNA then touched clean items, including linens and Resident Identifier (RI) #33's clean brief and gown. These failures affected one of four nurses observed during medication pass observations and one of one incontinent care observations, involving RI #58 and RI #33. Findings Include: A review of [NAME] and [NAME], Ninth Edition: FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING Chapter 32 Medication Administration, page 656, documented: . (1) .…
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 PRESTON HEALTH SERVICES — 5 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WALKER, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/08/2021 |
| HANSERD, MATTHEW | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| BOWLING, SHERRY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| PRESTON HEALTH SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2022 |
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.
This home reported $3.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 25% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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, FY2023). 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 015024. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2020-02-13, 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.