Redmont Health And Rehabilitation Center
1028 Bessemer Rd, Birmingham, AL 35228 · For profit - Individual · 163 certified beds · (205) 923-1777 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 federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- nursing-staff turnover (60%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 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) | 3 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 held steady at 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 | 3.0% | 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 | 0.3% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.0% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.1% | 24.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.5% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 16.1% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.7% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.5% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.8% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.2% | 80.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 42.4% | 24.8% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.3% | 11.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.56 | 1.96 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.27 | 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.
Met the expected recovery: 15.0% 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 20 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 21% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 32% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 15.0% | 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 | 30.0% | 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 | 15.0% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 163 beds and averages 98.2 residents a day — about 60% occupied, or roughly 65 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.484 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.69 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above 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 3 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.
15 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-10-27 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview and a facility policy titled Medicare Advanced Beneficiary Notice, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) # 13, RI #22, and RI #125 were issued a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) (CMS 10123). This affected three of three Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Beneficiary Protection Notices reviewed. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled Medicare Advanced Beneficiary Notice, dated April 2021 documented: .2. If the resident's Medicare Part A benefits are terminating for coverage reasons, the director of admissions or benefits coordinator issues the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (CMS form 10123) to the resident at least two calendar days before Medicare covered services end . RI # 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI # 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. RI # 125 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 10/27/22 at 3:57 p.m., a SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification review was conducted. There was no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-27 · 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 reviews, and review of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User ' s Manual, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #23's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] and RI #32's Annual MDS dated [DATE] were accurately coded to reflect RI #23's, and RI #32's active/current diagnoses. This affected two of 19 sampled residents for whom MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings Include: A review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.17.1, dated October 2019, revealed: . SECTION I: ACTIVE DIAGNOSES Intent: The items in this section are intended to code diseases that have a direct relationship to the resident's current functional status, cognitive status, mood or behavior status, medical treatments, nursing monitoring, or risk of death. One of the important functions of the MDS assessment is to generate an updated,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-27 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 a facility policy admission CRITERIA, the facility failed to ensure a Level II evaluation for Resident Identifier (RI) #58 was completed as indicated when the Level I screening determined a Level II was necessary. This affected Resident Identifier (RI) #58 one of two residents sampled for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR). Findings Include: A review of a facility policy with a revised date of December 2016 titled admission CRITERIA revealed . Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 8. Nursing and medical needs of individuals with mental disorders or intellectual disabilities will be determined by coordination with the Medicaid Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review program (PASARR) to the extent practicable. RI #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Schizophrenia and Unspecified Intellectual Disabilities. A review of RI #58's PASARR revealed . Level I Screening & Results for Mental Illness (MI)/ Intellectual…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-27 · 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 Record review, interview and a facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed for Resident Identifier (RI) #1 when he/she was prescribed an anticoagulation medication. This affected one of two residents sampled for the use of anticoagulation (AC) medication. Findings Include: A review of a policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered with a revised date of December 2016 documented: . A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. RI #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, COVID-19 and Cerebral Palsy. A review of RI #1's October 2022 physicians order documented .Eliquis Tablet 2.5 MG . Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day . Order date 7/20/22 Start Date 7/20/22 . A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-12 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled Cleaning and Disinfection of Environmental Surfaces, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident Identifier (RI) #54's mattress did not have a large smear of a brown substance covered by a sheet and 2. RI #34's side rail was free of a dried brown substance for two days. These observations were made on days one and two of the survey and affected two of 24 residents whose enviroment was observed. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled Cleaning and Disinfection of Environmental Surfaces with a revised date of June 2009 revealed, . Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 9. Housekeeping surfaces . will be cleaned on a regular basis . and when these surfaces are visibly soiled. 10. Environmental surfaces will be disinfected (or cleaned) on a regular basis . and when surfaces are visibly soiled. 15. potentially infectious materials will promptly be cleaned and decontaminated. 1. RI #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].…
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 · D2019-12-12 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, interview, and review of a facility policy titled In-Service Training Program, Nurse Aide , the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistants received annual dementia management training. This affected two of three Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA)s, Employee Identifier (EI) #11 and #12, whose training records were reviewed. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy title In-Service Training Program, Nurse Aide revealed . Policy Statement All nurse aide personnel shall participate in regularly scheduled in-service training classes . 3. Annual in-service must : . f. Include training in dementia management and abuse prevention. On 12/12/19 the surveyor reviewed Continuing Education records for the facility CNAs. Upon review no in-service was noted for dementia management training for EI #11 and #12. On 12/12/19 at 11:19 AM, an interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) # 8, Registered Nurse (RN), Supervisor, Staff Development. EI #8 was asked how many hours did EI #11, CNA, show on the in-service training record. EI #8 replied, 14…
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 · D2019-12-12 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 facility policies titled Antipsychotic Medication Use and Behavioral Assessment, Intervention, and Monitoring, the facility failed to ensure: Resident Identifier (RI) #38 did not receive Seroquel, an anti-psychotic medication, without adequate monitoring including observation for side effects, effectiveness, and a baseline Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS). This affected one of five residents sampled for anti-psychotic medication usage. Findings Include: A facility policy titled Antipsychotic Medication Use, with a revised date of December 2016 revealed . Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 16. The staff will observe, document, and report to the Attending Physician information regarding the effectiveness of any interventions, including antipsychotic medications. 17. Nursing staff shall monitor and report any of the following side effects and adverse consequences of antipsychotic medications to the Attending Physician: . d. Neurologic: . extrapyramidal…
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 · D2019-12-12 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interviews, and a facility policy titled Antipsychotic Medication Use, the facility failed to provide continued medical justification and indicated duration for as needed lorazepam for Resident Identifier (RI) #48 and RI #70. This affected two of six residents whose medical record was reviewed for as needed psychotropic medications. Findings Include: A facility policy titled Antipsychotic Medication Use, with a revised date of December 2016 revealed . Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 14. The need to continue PRN (as needed) orders for psychotropic medications beyond 14 days requires that the practitioner document the rationale for the extended order. The duration of the PRN order will be indicated in the order . 1) RI #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. A diagnosis included anxiety disorder due to unknown physiological condition (admission). A review of RI #48's medical record revealed a physician's order dated 10/25/2019 for lorazepam . 0.5…
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 · D2019-12-12 · 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 and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the box that contained the controlled Lorazepam (Ativan) was permanently affixed in the medication refrigerator in the Station 2 medication room. This was observed on 12/12/19 and affected one of two medication room refrigerators observed for stored medications. Findings Include: On 12/12/19 at 10:10 AM, the surveyor observed the medication room at station 2 with Employee Identifier (EI) #7, Licensed Practical Nurse. The surveyor asked what was stored in the refrigerator. EI #7 replied, medications only. EI #7 opened the locked refrigerator; the surveyor asked if there was stock Ativan in the refrigerator. EI #7 replied, yes and removed the locked box from the bottom shelf. The surveyor asked what was in the box. EI #7 replied, three vials of two (2) milliliter (mL) Ativan injectable and one 30 ml bottle of liquid oral Ativan. EI #7 was asked who was the medication for. EI #7 replied, the medication was stock medication. EI #7 was asked how should the locked box with the Ativan in it be kept. EI #7 replied, it should…
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 · F2018-11-01 · 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 observations, interviews and review of the 2017 U.S. (United States) Public Health Service Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: (1) a container of sliced dill pickles, mayonnaise, dill relish pickles, mustard, jelly and barbeque sauce in the walk-in-cooler contained a use by date; this was observed on 10/29/18, during the initial tour of the kitchen; (2) dented cans in the dry storage were not stored with the other canned food items; this was observed on 10/29/18, during the initial tour of the kitchen; and (3) dust was not on the fan on the back of the oven and on the pipes and sprinkler heads over the serving area; this was observed on two of four days of the survey. These deficient practices had the potential to affect all 90 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. According to the facility's RESIDENT CENSUS AND CONDITION OF RESIDENTS form, the census was 108. Findings Include: (1) A review of the 2017 U.S. Public Health Service Food Code revealed: . 3-5 LIMITATION OF GROWTH OF ORGANISMS OF PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN . 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control…
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.
Show the remaining 5 citations
- Potential for harm · D2018-11-01 · 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 and a facility policy titled, Quality of Life-Dignity, the facility failed to ensure staff did not conduct a social conversation with another staff while feeding RI (Resident Identifier) #96 during the lunch meal on 10/31/18. This deficient practice affected RI#96, one of nine residents who required assistance with meals. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Quality of Life-Dignity with a revised date of August 2009 documented: . Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect and individuality . RI #96 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Unspecified Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance. On 10/31/18 at 1:12 p.m., the surveyor observed EI (Employee Identifier) #2, a LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse), feeding RI #96 during the lunch meal on 10/31/18. EI #2 and EI #3, a Registered Nurse, were engaged in a social conversation while EI #2 was feeding RI #96. On 11/01/18 at 2:08 p.m., an…
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 before2018-11-01 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 and a document review of the SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) Beneficiary Protection Notification Review, the facility failed to ensure RI ( Resident Identifier) #63 and RI #84 were issued a Medicare Coverage/Liability Notice. This deficient practice affected two out of three SNF Beneficiary Protection Notices reviewed. Findings Include: RI #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #84 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 11/01/18 at 4:36 p.m., a SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification review was conducted. There was no evidence that RI #63 and RI #84 were issued a SNF, ABN(Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage) letter which was required. On 11/01/18 at 4.59 p.m., an interview was conducted with EI (Employee Identifier) #1, Regional Business Office Consultant. EI #1 was asked if RI #63 and RI #84 were given a SNF-ABN letter. EI #1 said, No. EI #1 was asked should RI #63 and RI #84 have been given a SNF-ABN letter. EI #1 said, Yes. EI #1 was asked why were RI #63 and RI #84 not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-11-01 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure: (1) the right arm rest on Resident Identifier (RI) #35's wheelchair (W/C) was not torn; (2) the arm of RI #66's recliner chair was not torn/ripped; and (3) the right arm rest on RI #78's Geri chair was not torn/ripped. These deficient practices affected RI #'s 35, 66 and 78, three of 34 sampled residents who used a recliner chair, W/C or Geri chair. Findings Include: 1) RI #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. RI #35's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/22/18, revealed RI #35 used a W/C for mobility. On 10/30/18 at 7:45 a.m., the surveyor observed RI #35 sitting in a W/C. The left arm rest of the W/C was torn. On 10/31/18 at 7:30 a.m., the surveyor again observed RI #35 sitting in the W/C. The left arm rest on the wheelchair remained torn. On 10/31/18 at 12:27 p.m., RI #35 was again observed sitting in the WC with the left arm rest torn. 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 · D2018-11-01 · 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, interviews, review of the 2018-2019 Fall and Winter Menus and a facility policy titled, MENUS, the facility failed to ensure RI (Resident Identifier) # 19, #34 and #66 received their dessert during the lunch meal on 10/31/18 and RI #13 and RI #22 received their dessert during the dinner meal on 10/31/18. This deficient practice affected five of nine residents observed for meals. Findings Include: A review of an undated facility policy titled, MENUS revealed: POLICY .Menus are implemented by the Dietary Manager .Well planned menus aid in meeting the nutritional and psychosocial needs of the residents . A review of a document titled, .2018-2019 Fall and Winter Menus dated 10/3/18, revealed the dessert for the lunch meal for 10/31/18 was Oatmeal Raisin Cookie and the dessert for evening meal was Fruit Crisp. RI #19 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was on a Regular Mechanical Soft Diet. RI #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was on a Regular Diet. RI #66 was re-admitted…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2018-11-01 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the door to the dumpster was not left opened. This was observed on 10/29/18, during the initial tour of the kitchen. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 108 residents residing in the facility. Findings Include: On 10/29/18 at 5:38 p.m., the surveyor observed the dumpster. The side door on the dumpster was open and three trash bags and a cardboard box with yellow looking gowns on the inside of it was observed. On 11/01/18 at 9:30 a.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with Employee Identifier (EI) #5, Dietary Manager. The surveyor asked EI #5 how should the door on the dumpsters be kept. EI #5 said closed. When asked what was there a potential for when left opened, EI #5 replied pests and rodents could get in the dumpster.
“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 ARABELLA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT — 12 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 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 11 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARABELLA HEALTH & WELLNESS OF BESSEMER PROPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/25/2023 |
| HERTZEL, CHAIM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/25/2023 |
| ARABELLA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/13/2025 |
| AZZAM, MOHANNAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/24/2023 |
| SELMAN, SYDNEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
| FEIN, MIRIAM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/13/2025 |
| ZLOTOWITZ, ELIYAHU | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/13/2025 |
| ARCO KANO IRRV TR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/04/2024 |
| GNH IRRV TR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/04/2024 |
| HWOOD PARTNERS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/04/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
5 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 86% 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 $880K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 015303. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2022-10-27, 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.