Diversicare Of Boaz
600 Corley Avenue, Boaz, AL 35957 · For profit - Corporation · 100 certified beds · (256) 593-8380 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 fell from 3 to 2 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 | 7.5% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.5% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.9% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.6% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.6% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.3% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 27.8% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.3% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 80.1% | 80.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.7% | 24.8% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.6% | 11.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.84 | 1.96 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.86 | 1.70 | 1.80 | typical |
* 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.
60.1% 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 109 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.0% 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 50 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 | 60.1%CMS range 49.7–67.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 7.5–14.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 68.0% | 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 | 78.0% | 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 | 48.0% | 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 | 98.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 2.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.3% | 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 | 7.4%CMS range 4.1–13.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 100 beds and averages 91.1 residents a day — about 91% 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.93 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.70 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 2.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.15 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.07 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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 · Fcited before2025-07-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the facility failed to discard expired foods; properly store foods in a refrigerator and freezer; maintain cold foods on the tray line to at least 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F); and wash, rinse, and sanitize dishes according to manufacturer instructions. These deficient practices had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings included: A facility Census List: 06/10/2025 included a list of 89 residents and their physician ordered diets. The document revealed each resident was on a regular diet or controlled carbohydrate diet (CCD). 1. A policy from the contracted company providing dietary services titled, Food Storage: Cold Foods, revised 02/2023, revealed, All Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) foods, frozen and refrigerated, will be appropriately stored in accordance with guidelines of the FDA [Food and Drug…
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 · E2025-07-04 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — patternHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
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 facility document and policy review, the facility failed to provide access to resident funds on an ongoing basis. This had the potential to affect 62 of 90 residents whose personal funds were managed by the facility. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Resident Trust, dated [DATE], Each Center shall have standardized policies for the handling of resident trust accounts, both active resident funds and the funds of deceased residents. The policy revealed no process for how and when residents would be able to access their funds managed by the facility. A facility Trial Balance document with resident fund balances as of [DATE], revealed 62 residents with active accounts. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:02 AM, Resident #11 stated they had funds managed by the facility and that they were not able to make withdrawals on Saturdays or Sundays because the business office staff were not at the facility. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:24 AM, Resident #8 stated they…
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 · D2025-07-04 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident rights were protected, and efforts were made to resolve a grievance for 1 (Resident #64) of 3 residents reviewed for grievances. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Customer Concern (Grievance) Policy, effective 07/2018, revealed the purpose of the policy was to Support each customer's (patient's/resident's) right to voice concerns (grievances) and to ensure after receiving a concern, the center actively seeks a resolution and keeps the customer appropriately apprised of its progress toward resolution. The policy revealed, In resolving the concern, both the Administrator and the customer will develop a plan of action which will be specific about what is to occur. The center will implement the plan of action. The Administrator shall follow up on the correction of the problem and finalize the Customer Concern Form validating the resolution of the concern including who did what, when, and where. The Administrator shall contact the customer to assure him/her that…
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 · D2025-07-04 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 document and policy review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from verbal abuse perpetrated by staff for 2 (Resident #56 and Resident #39) of 11 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, effective 01/2019, indicated, Purpose: To prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and to ensure reporting and investigation of alleged violations (to include injuries of unknown source, mistreatment and involuntary seclusion) in accordance with Federal and State Laws. The policy also indicated, Verbal abuse: May be considered to be a type of mental abuse. Verbal abuse includes the use of oral, written, or gestured communication, or sounds, to residents within hearing distance, regardless of age, ability to comprehend, or disability. The policy also specified, Mental Abuse: is the use of verbal or nonverbal…
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 · D2025-07-04 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from any physical restraint not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms, which affected 1 (Resident #299) of 1 resident reviewed for use of restraints. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Restraint, dated 11/28/2016, revealed, Upon determination a patient/resident presents with medical symptoms that may require a restraint, they are evaluated for the least restrictive device. This evaluation includes physical considerations, medical issues and possible restraint alternatives such as referrals to rehab [rehabilitation] therapy or mental health services. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #299 on 03/22/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/03/2024, revealed Resident #299 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, 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 · Dcited before2025-07-04 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff reported allegations of staff-to-resident abuse to administration within two hours for 2 (Resident #37 and Resident #300) of 11 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.Findings included: A facility policy titled, “Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy,” effective 01/2019, indicated, “7. Reporting and Response: Alleged violations/violations will be reported to the Administrator, designee immediately. Immediately reporting all alleged violations to the Administrator, designee, state agency, adult protective services and to all other quired agencies (e.g. [for example], law enforcement when applicable) within specified timeframes.” The table column titled, “Alleged Violations,” and row titled “When” revealed, “All alleged violations - Immediately but not later than 1. 2 hours if the alleged violation involves abuse or results in serious bodily injury. 2. 24 hours if the alleged violation does…
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 · D2025-07-04 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to immediately put protective measures in place to prevent further potential abuse following an allegation of staff-to-resident verbal abuse for 1 (Resident # 37) of 11 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The facility also failed to have evidence that allegations of abuse and/or neglect were thoroughly investigated for 2 (Resident #300 and Resident #14) of 11 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. Findings included: 1. A facility policy titled, “Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy,” effective 01/2019, indicated: “Purpose: To prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and to ensure reporting and investigation of alleged violations (to include injuries of unknown source, mistreatment and involuntary seclusion) in accordance with Federal and State Laws.” The policy revealed, “The following protocol has been established in the event of an allegation of abuse: 1. Protection,” which included, “If the suspected perpetrator is 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 · Fcited before2019-09-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and a review of the facility's policy titled, Dishwashing Procedures, the facility failed to ensure two pans and serving trays were allowed to air dry before storage. This had the potential to affect all 89 residents being served food from the kitchen. The RESIDENT CENSUS AND CONDITIONS OF RESIDENTS (Form CMS-672) signed by the Director of Nursing and dated 9/17/2019, indicated the facility had a total of 89 residents. Findings include: The facility's policy titled, Dishwashing Procedures, with an effective date of 8/1/2012, documented POLICY It is the policy of this facility to properly sanitize dishes and to establish systems to avoid the improper handling of dishware . General Rules: . 4. Clean dishes must be allowed to air dry before storage . During the initial tour of the kitchen on 9/16/2019 at 3:38 PM, two line pans were observed wet nesting. Wet nesting occurs when clean pans are stacked together without completely drying first. On 9/18/2019 at 12:02 PM, the surveyor observed a stack of serving trays with water droplets between each tray.…
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 before2018-08-08 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview and review of a policy tilted Abuse Policy the facility failed to ensure an allegation of sexual abuse and verbal abuse were reported to the State Agency within 2 hours. This affected 2 of 5 abuse records reviewed during the survey and Resident Identifier's (RI) #62 and RI #141. Findings Include: Review of a policy tilted Abuse Policy with an effective date of June 2018 documented: .Reporting .1. Any allegation of abuse within two hours . 1) On 8/8/18 at 11:00 a.m., the surveyor reviewed the online incident report involving an allegation of sexual abuse concerning RI #62. The facility became aware of the incident on 5/6/18 at 3:11 p.m. and did not report the incident until 5/6/18 at 6:31 p.m. On 8/8/18 at 12:38 p.m., an interview was completed with Employee Identified (EI) #1, Administrator, Abuse Coordinator. EI # 1 stated the allegation of abuse concerning RI #62 occurred on 5/6/18 around 3:11 p.m. and was reported to the State Agency on 5/6/18 at 6:31 p.m. EI #1 stated it should have been reported by 5:11 p.m. on 6/23/18, within 2 hours. 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 · D2018-08-08 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on Record Review and Interview the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) # 9's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/18/18 documented the use of oxygen. This affected 1 of 19 residents whose MDS's were reviewed for accuracy. Findings Include: RI # 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation. A review of RI # 9's Physician Orders documented: .O2(oxygen) @ 2L(liters)/M(minute) per NC (nasal canal) PRN (as needed) .every day and night shift .4/16/18 . A review of RI # 9's Significant Change MDS with an ARD of 5/18/18 on 8/8/18 at 4:00 p.m. did not document the use of oxygen in Section O. An interview was conducted with Employee Indentifer (EI) # 4, Registered Nurse (RN) MDS Coordinator on 8/8/18 at 4:35 p.m. EI # 4 stated RI # 9 was currently receiving PRN oxygen. EI # 4 further stated RI # 9 received oxygen 3 times during the look back period for the Significant…
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 · D2018-08-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, [NAME] & [NAME] Eighth Edition and [NAME] and [NAME], Fundamentals of Nursing, Ninth Edition, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) # 9's nebulizer machine tubing and face mask were bagged after use and the medication cup and face mask were changed out weekly. This affected 1 of 1 resident sampled who received nebulizer treatments. Findings Include: A review of [NAME] & [NAME] 8th Edition, Chapter 21, Page 528 documented: .Proper storage reduces transfer of microorganisms . A review of of [NAME] and [NAME], Fundamentals of Nursing, Ninth Edition, Chapter 29, Infection Prevention and Control, page 455, documented: .Cleaning. Cleaning is the removal of organic material .from objects and surfaces .When an object comes in contact with an infectious or potentially infectious material, it is contaminated . RI # 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Exacerbation . A review of RI # 9's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE — 44 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 43; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIVERSICARE LEASING COMPANY III LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2016 |
| ADVOCAT FINANCE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2016 |
| DAC NEWCORP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2022 |
| DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/01/2016 |
| DIVERSICARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2016 |
| KELLMAN, FRANKLIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/13/2024 |
| KOHN, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/19/2021 |
| RATNER, ERAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/13/2024 |
| BODIE, REBECCA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/02/2020 |
| NEE, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/20/2023 |
| WEISHAAR, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2003 |
| DIVERSICARE OF BOAZ LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2016 |
| GASPAR, ENRICO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/10/2019 |
| HALL, ETHAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/09/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $519K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Alabama Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 015063. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-04, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.