Arlington Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center
1020 Tuscaloosa Avenue, SW, Birmingham, AL 35211 · For profit - Corporation · 117 certified beds · (205) 788-6330 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- 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)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 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 | 17.8% | 12.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.8% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.7% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 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 | 0.6% | 0.6% | 0.1% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.2% | 3.3% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.1% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.7% | 24.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 39.2% | 94.8% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 12.0% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.0% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.2% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.8% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 53.7% | 80.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.2% | 24.8% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.6% | 11.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.98 | 1.96 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.35 | 1.70 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
37.6% 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 61 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 35.9% 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 53 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 0.49 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 80% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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 | 37.6%CMS range 28.9–51.0 | 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 | 10.2%CMS range 7.6–15.2 | 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 | 35.9% | 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 | 47.2% | 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 | 26.4% | 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 | 92.5% | 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 | 93.7% | 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 | 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 | 2.8% | 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 | 12.3% | 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 | 10.0%CMS range 6.8–16.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.58 | 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 117 beds and averages 108.4 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 2.95 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 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 40% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-22 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
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 interviews, record review, and the facility's policy titled Behavior Management Program the facility failed to ensure staff implemented Resident Identifier (RI) #3's behavioral care plan approaches. RI #3 had care planned behaviors of being combative and resisting care with an approach to leave the resident alone and return later when the resident resisted care. On 03/31/2023 staff continued to provide care to RI #3 after staff observed the resident was agitated and the resident asked to be left alone. This deficient practice affected RI #3, one of 12 sampled residents whose plan of care was reviewed. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Behavior Management Program with most recent date of 02/2013 documented: .PURPOSE: To provide facilities with a standardized process for identifying, assessing, and managing residents who display mental or psychosocial adjustment difficulties. PROCESS: . II. Behavior Management Programs a) The plan of care should be developed by the interdisciplinary team. e)…
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 · D2021-04-01 · 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 interview, record review and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to accurately code the resident's status on the completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for three (3) residents (Resident #21, #25 and #94) out of 21 sampled residents. The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 4/1/21 at 3:00 p.m. revealed the facility did not have a policy to ensure MDS assessments were accurately coded. Review of the CMS RAI 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.17.1, dated October 2019, Chapter 3, revealed under Section O Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, for item O0100C oxygen therapy code continuous or intermittent oxygen administered via mask, cannula, etc., delivered to a resident to relieve hypoxia in this item. For item O0100K Hospice care code residents identified as being in a hospice program for terminally ill persons where an array of services is provided for the palliation…
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 · D2021-04-01 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately document the code status of two (2) out of 24 sampled residents (Resident #17 and #94). The facility failed to properly transcribe the correct code status of Resident #17 and #94 to the Physician's Order. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Advance Directive and Refusal of Treatment, dated 11/2013, revealed the policy did not address the use of the Physician's Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) as the POLST is not considered an Advance Directive by definition of an Advance Directive. 1. Review of the Face Sheet for Resident #17 revealed admission into the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included but were not limited to Hemiplegia following Intracerebral Hemorrhage affecting Left Non-dominant Side, Chronic Respiratory Failure, Tracheostomy, Gastrostomy, Persistent Vegetative State, Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Dysphagia, Contact and Exposure to Other Viral Communicable…
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 · D2019-03-21 · 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 observation, interview, record review and review of a facility policy titled, Resident Privacy, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #147's Foley catheter bag was in a privacy bag and not visible from the hallway on 03/21/19. This deficient practice affected RI #147, one of two residents sampled with a Foley catheter. Findings Include: A facility policy titled, Resident Privacy, dated 12/04, revealed the following: It is the policy of Ball HealthCare Services, Inc. (BHS) . that all residents have the right to personal privacy, including privacy in . medical treatment . RI #147 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Hypertension and Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Unspecified Stage. On 03/21/19 at 9:11 a.m., the surveyor observed RI #147's Foley catheter bag did not have a covering and could be seen from the hallway. RI #147's roommate was observed coming from the bathroom, passing the side of the bed where RI #147's Foley catheter could be observed. Staff was…
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 before2019-03-21 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #146 had a Physician's Order for the use of Oxygen and suctioning. RI #146 was observed utilizing Oxygen at 2 liters via (by way of) nasal cannula and having suction set up at the bedside on three of four days of the survey. This deficient practice affected RI #146, one of 37 sampled residents whose Physician Orders were reviewed. Findings Include: RI #146 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnoses of Personal History of Recurrent Pneumonia. RI #146's Problem/Need care plan titled, (RI #1) is at risk for difficulty breathing related to HX (history) of Pneumonia and diagnosis Asthma with a Problem Onset date of 03/07/19, revealed the following approaches: . * O2 (Oxygen) per NC (Nasal Cannula) as ordered *Suction as ordered . A review of RI #146's March 2019 Physicians Orders revealed RI #146 did not have an order for the O2 or suctioning. A review of RI #146's Departmental Notes revealed 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 · Dcited before2019-03-21 · 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #146's suction machine and Yankauer (oral suctioning tool) were covered while not in use on three of four days of the survey. This deficient practice affected RI #146, one of three residents sampled requiring suctioning. Findings Include: RI #146 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnoses of Personal History of Recurrent Pneumonia. On 03/19/19 at 2:27 p.m., the surveyor observed a suction machine on top of RI #146's dresser. A Yankauer, which was connected to the suction machine was observed to be lying on the inside of the dresser drawer. Neither the suction machine nor Yankauer were in a covering. On 03/20/19 at 9:23 a.m., RI #146's suction machine and Yankauer, which remained on the insider of the dresser drawer, remained uncovered. 03/20/19 at 3:42 p.m., RI #146's suction machine and Yankauer remained uncovered. On 03/21/19 at 7:41 a.m., RI #146's suction machine and Yankauer, which…
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 · F2018-03-15 · 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, the 2013 Food Code, and the facility's policy on Waste Disposal, the facility failed to ensure the area around the outside oil refuse receptacle was free from food related garbage and trash, so as to discourage attracting vermin. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility, 109 of 109 residents. Findings Include: 2013 Food Code by the United States Public Health Service and Food and Drug Administration documented the following: . 5-501.15 Outside Receptacles. (B) Receptacles and waste handling units for REFUSE . shall be installed so that accumulation of debris and insect and rodent attraction and harborage are minimized and effective cleaning is facilitated around and . under the unit. 5-501.115 Maintaining Refuse Areas and Enclosures. A storage area . for REFUSE . shall be maintained free of unnecessary items, as specified under . 6-501.114, and clean. 6-501.114 Maintaining Premises, Unnecessary Items and Litter. The PREMISES shall be free of: . (B) Litter. The facility's policy and procedure for Waste Disposal, last revised 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 · D2018-03-15 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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, medical record review and review of a facility policy titled, Resident Privacy, the facility failed to ensure licensed staff provided privacy during suctioning and Tracheostomy care for Resident Identifier (RI) #89. This deficient practice affected RI #89, one of one resident observed during Tracheostomy care. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Resident Privacy, revealed: It is the policy .that all residents have the right to personal privacy, including privacy in accommodations, medical treatment . RI #89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, Respiratory Failure Unspecified With Hypoxia or Hypercapnia and Tracheostomy Status. On 03/15/18 at 10:45 a.m., Employee Identifier (EI) #2, a Respiratory Therapist, was observed suctioning and providing Tracheostomy care for RI #89. The privacy curtain was not pulled and the door remained open during RI #89's medical treatment. On 03/15/18 at 2:11 p.m., an interview was conducted with EI #2.…
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 · D2018-03-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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, medical record review, and review of facility documents titled, ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed for the use of a psychoactive medication for Resident Identifier (RI) #16. This deficient practice affected one of 28 residents reviewed for care plans. Findings Include: A review of a facility document titled, ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY with a revised date of 09/2009, revealed: SUBJECT: Care Plans PURPOSE: Plans of Care are developed . to coordinate and communicate the plan of care for the resident. A review of a facility document titled, ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY with a revised date of 02/2013, revealed: SUBJECT: Psychoactive Medications . PROCESS: I. Unnecessary Drugs . (f)Nursing service, social service and other members of the interdisciplinary team will address behavior symptoms . in the plan of care . According to record review, RI #16 was readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses including, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Alzheimer's Disease 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 before2018-03-15 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, medical record review, review of a facility policy titled, Oral and Nasal Inhalation Administration and Fundamentals of Nursing the facility failed to ensure: 1.) a Licensed Nurse remained with Resident Identifier (RI) #53 during administration of a nebulizer treatment, and 2.) Licensed Nurses followed physician's orders for flushes between medications for Resident Identifier (RI) #3 and RI #25. These deficient practices affected RI #53, RI #3 and RI #25, three of eight residents and three of seven nurses observed during medication administration observation. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Oral and Nasal Inhalation Administration, dated 8-2007 revealed: PURPOSE: To administer oral, nasal and aerosol inhalation medications in a safe and accurate manner. .III. Aerosol/Hand Held/Mask Nebulizer Therapy .d. Monitor delivery of medication until completely delivered. A review of Fundamentals of Nursing Ninth Edition, 2017, by [NAME] Stockert and Hall, Page 632…
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 before2018-03-15 · 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 observations, interviews, medical record reviews and review of a facility document titled, Standard Precautions, the facility failed to ensure licensed staff: 1. changed gloves after gastrostomy tube medication administration for Resident Identifier (RI) #3 before rinsing, drying and storing RI #3's syringe, 2. did not manipulate a paper towel dispenser lever while wearing gloves during RI #3's medication administration, and 3. rinsed and dried both pieces of RI #25's piston syringe before storing them in a plastic bag, These deficient practices affected RI #3 and RI #25, two of eight residents and two of seven nurses observed during medication pass observations. Findings Include: A review of a facility document titled, Standard Precautions revised 12/2009 revealed: Standard Precautions will be used in the care of all residents regardless of their diagnosis or presumed infection status.POLICY INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION: 1. Hand Hygiene .b. Wash hands immediately after gloves are removed, between…
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 BALL HEALTHCARE SERVICES — 9 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BALL, CLARENCE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 100% | since 07/01/2003 |
| HALL, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2014 |
| ALMONTE SENCION, MARCOS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| HOLLIS, VERLISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/03/2024 |
| UPSHAW, BRANDON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2025 |
| BALL HEALTHCARE - MOUNTAINVIEW, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2003 |
| BALL HEALTHCARE SERVICE, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/11/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
This home reported $3.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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 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 015153. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2021-04-01, 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.