Cordova Health And Rehabilitation, LLC
70 Highland Street West, Cordova, AL 35550 · For profit - Corporation · 114 certified beds · (205) 483-9282 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0610) — most recent Nov 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $76,242 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-20)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (57%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 56% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 1 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 3 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 1 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 | 9.1% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 14.7% | 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 | 4.2% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.3% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.7% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.4% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 5.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.7% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.1% | 21.2% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 80.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.0% | 24.8% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.8% | 11.3% | 12.0% | 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.
47.7% 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 53 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 47% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 47.7%CMS range 38.2–59.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 7.8–16.6 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.1% | 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 | 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 | 2.9% | 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 | 7.6%CMS range 4.4–16.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 114 beds and averages 107.4 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 7 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 4.05 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.92 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.03 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.46 on weekdays — 32% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.17 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-11-20 · 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 observation, interviews, record reviews, and the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Resident/Guest Property, Suspicious Injuries of Unknown Source, Exploitation, and review of a Facility Reported Incident (FRI) received by the Alabama Department of Public Health, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and appropriate interventions to prevent sexual abuse perpetrated by Resident Identifier (RI) #325 against RI #82, a resident with known manipulative romantic behaviors, history of entering male residents' rooms, and history of consenting to sexual relationships. Multiple of the facility's staff were aware of RI #82's behaviors of entering male residents' rooms and manipulative romantic behaviors. The facility did not develop or implement interventions to address RI #82's repeated behaviors and ensure he/she was protected. The facility did not develop interventions to establish the level of supervision needed to ensure RI #82's safety. On 06/03/2024 staff heard 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-11-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policies titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Resident/Guest Property, Suspicious Injuries of Unknown Source, Exploitation, and Incidents and Accidents, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an incident of abuse to prevent further occurrences. After staff witnessed an incident of sexual abuse on 06/03/2024 involving RI #82 and RI #325, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported the 06/03/2024 incident to the Administrator (ADM). There was no evidence the investigation included interviews with either resident involved. The investigation failed to identify that the facility's failure to provide supervision to RI #82, a resident with a known history of romantically manipulative behaviors and history entering male resident rooms without supervision. Because the facility's investigation failed to identify potential contributing factors, the facility was unable to develop and implement any new measures or actions to prevent recurrence. It was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-11-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, the facility's policy for Sanitation Principles, and the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2022 Food Code; the facility failed to prevent the potential for cross-contamination by allowing: 1. staff who were chewing gum to assist residents with meals, 2. clean pots and pans to be stored on a rusty wire shelving rack, 3. a dirty floor in the storeroom for thickened liquids and nutritional supplements and additionally allowing a delivery of nutritional supplements to be placed on the dirty floor, 4. wooden shelving with gaps along the floor line, which could not be cleaned beneath, in the thickened liquids and nutritional supplement storeroom, and 5. the double sink used for food preparation to have a direct connection to the sewer. Findings include: The facility's policy for Sanitation Principles, dated 08/10/2018, included the following: . PURPOSE: To prevent the spread of bacteria that may cause food borne illnesses. STANDARD: Food…
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 · F2024-11-20 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, the facility's policy for Sanitation Principles, and the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2022 Food Code; the facility failed to ensure the Three-compartment Pot and Pan Sink was in good repair for use. Two of three drain levers did not work, resulting in the rinse sink and the sanitizing sink being unable to hold water. This had the potential to affect 108 of 108 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Findings include: The facility's policy for Sanitation Principles, dated 08/10/2018, included the following: . PURPOSE: To prevent the spread of bacteria that may cause food borne illnesses. STANDARD: Food service areas should be maintained . The current . Food Code should be utilized as guidelines for the department. PROCESS: . b. equipment should be . maintained in good repair . The U.S. FDA 2022 Food Code included the following: . 4-501.11 Good Repair and Proper Adjustment. (A) EQUIPMENT shall be maintained in a state of repair . During the initial kitchen tour on 11/12/2024 at 10:55 AM, the Three-compartment Pot and Pan…
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 · E2024-11-20 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 observation, interview, the facility's policy for Sanitation Principles, and the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2022 Food Code; the facility failed to ensure one large return vent in the Dining Room and seven of thirteen exit vents on C and D halls were clean. The facility also failed to ensure one of two clocks on C Hall was working. In addition, the facility failed to ensure five of six vinyl covered chairs in the front lobby and front hallway did not have torn or cracked upholstery. This affected two of four halls and one of one dining room. Findings include: The facility's policy for Sanitation Principles, dated 08/10/2018, included the following: . PURPOSE: To prevent the spread of bacteria . STANDARD: . areas should be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. PROCESS: . b. equipment should be kept clean, maintained in good repair, and should be free from breaks, corrosion, open seams, cracks . The U.S. FDA 2022 Food Code included the following: . 6-501.11 Repairing.…
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 · D2024-11-20 · 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 record review, interviews, documents titled Online Incident Reporting System Report and a facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Resident/Guest Property, Suspicious Injuries of Unknown Source, Exploitation the facility failed to report allegations related to physical and verbal abuse within 2 hours to the state agency on 04/09/2024, 07/03/2024 and 10/27/2024. This affected Resident Identifiers (RI) #27, #43 and #91. This deficient practice affected three of eleven residents sampled for abuse. Findings Include: A review of a policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Resident/Guest Property, Suspicious Injuries of Unknown Source, Exploitation with an effective date of May 01, 2023, documented the following: .b) Investigation and Reporting Steps .All allegations of abuse and instances that result in serious bodily injury must be reported with 2 hours. 1. A review of a document titled Online Incident Reporting System Report documented RI #91 reported an allegation of verbal abuse…
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 · D2024-11-20 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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, interview, and review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #2's completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments was transmitted to the CMS system. This affected RI #2, one of 22 sampled residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2024, revealed the following: CHAPTER 5: SUBMISSION .OF THE MDS ASSESSMENTS Transmitting Data: Providers must transmit all sections of the MDS 3.0 required for their State-specific instrument, including the Care Area Assessment (CAA) Summary (Section V) and all tracking or correction information. Transmission requirements apply to all MDS 3.0 records used to meet both federal and state requirements. . Assessment Transmission: Comprehensive…
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 · D2024-11-20 · 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 interviews, record review, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)Center) Long- Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 Manual, the facility failed to 1) ensure Resident Identified (RI) #60's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] section A1500 was coded accurately to reflect RI #60's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II. 2) ensure RI #82's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] section A1500 was coded accurately to reflect RI #82's PASRR Level II. This deficient practice affected two of 22 sampled residents whose MDS was reviewed. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2024, revealed the following: A1500: Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) . Code 1, yes: if PASRR Level II screening determined that the resident has a serious mental illness and/or ID/DD or related condition 1) RI #60 was admitted to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #7, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) washed her hands prior to putting gloves on. Without washing or sanitizing her hands, EI #7 put gloves on and administered an inhaler medication to Resident Identifier (RI) #45. This deficient practice affected RI #45, one of four residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: RI #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #45 has a medical history to include a diagnosis of Asthma. RI #45's Physician Orders for October 2019 included an order for . Flovent 100 MCG (microgram) DISKUS inhaled BID (twice a day) for asthma . During medication pass observation on 10/3/2019 at 8:09 AM, EI #7, a LPN put on gloves without washing or sanitizing her hands and administered an inhaler medication, Flovent, to RI #45. In an interview on 10/3/2019 at 12:00 PM, EI #7, a LPN was asked when should she wash her hands when wearing gloves. EI #7 answered, before putting…
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 · F2018-09-06 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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, a test tray, interview, the 2017 Food Code, and the facility's policies for Tray Assembly and Food Preparation Guidelines, the facility failed to ensure hot food items were served hot and further failed to ensure equipment designed to maintain the cold temperature of individual cartons of skim milk was used during the lunch trayline on 9/5/2018. This affected Resident Identifier (RI) #28, RI #61, fifteen of fifteen residents attending Resident Council on 9/5/2018 at 1:00 PM, and had the potential to affect 108 residents receiving meals from the kitchen, 108 of 111 residents. Findings Include: The facility's policy for Tray Assembly, dated 2/1/2002, included: . Purpose: . provide foods that are at proper temperature . Process: . e. equipment designed to maintain temperature should be used. The facility's policy for Food Preparation Guidelines, dated 8/15/2009, included: . Purpose: . Food should be palatable, attractive, and at the proper temperature, as determined by the type of food, to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2018-09-06 · 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, the 2017 Food Code, and the facility's policies for Food Preparation Guidelines, Food Receipt and Storage, and Cleaning of Miscellaneous Equipment and Utensils, the facility failed to ensure the potential for cross-contamination did not occur due to food items and supplies being stored less than six inches off the floor and the accumulation of dust on the ceiling and walls of the walk-in cooler. The facility further failed to maintain the cold temperature of an individual carton of skim milk at 41 degrees F (Fahrenheit) or below during the resident lunch trayline on 9/5/2018. This had the potential to affect 108 residents receiving meals from the kitchen, 108 of 111 residents. Findings Include: The facility's policy for Food Preparation Guidelines, dated 8/15/2009, included the following: . Process: . g. Food should be protected from contamination, while being stored, prepared, and served to residents. To prevent growth of pathogenic organisms: 1. Refrigerated at or below 41 . (degrees) F, . The facility's policy for Food Receipt and Storage, dated…
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 before2018-09-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, medical record reviews and review of facility policies titled, Hand Hygiene, Medication Administration and Contact Precautions, the facility failed to ensure: 1) a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) washed her hands and changed her gloves appropriately during the medication administration and also place a barrier between the over bed table and medication supplies for Resident Identifier (R) #110; 2) a sign was posted outside RI #1's room to notify staff, residents and visitors to check with the nurse prior to entering the room and 3) a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) placed on appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) prior to entering the room of RI #1. 1)This affected 1 of 5 residents and 1 of 5 nurses during the observations of medication administration. 2) This affected 1 of 1 sampled resident on contact isolation. Findings Include: The facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene, effective date 9/1/17, included: . The following is a list of some situations that require hand…
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 · C2024-11-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — widespreadHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and the facility's policy for Enhanced Dining; the facility failed to ensure residents' lunch meals were not left upon transport trays when served to residents in the dining room on Tuesday, 11/12/2024 and Wednesday, 11/13/2024. This affected 40 of 40 residents receiving meals in the facility's dining room. Findings include: The facility's policy for Enhanced Dining, dated 02/23/2011, included the following: PURPOSE: To improve resident/guest(s) quality of life by allowing them to enjoy dining in a non-institutional environment, when possible. STANDARD: To the extent possible, the facility should provide a dignified environment at mealtime, . PROCESS: To enhance the resident/guest(s) dining experience, and ultimately the resident/guest(s) appetite, the following strategies may be considered: . e. Use of china or attractive dishes, with elimination of food trays . Resident Identifier (RI) #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. During a dining…
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
$76,242 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $76,242 — penalty dated 2024-11-20
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-12-21 for 4 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NHS MANAGEMENT — 43 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOUTH-CARE MEDICAL FACILITIES, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | 100% | since 07/15/2003 |
| ESTES, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 100% | since 07/03/2002 |
| REGIONS BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 08/31/2017 |
| WARD, SONNY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/10/2024 |
| COX, TAMMY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/23/2023 |
| RASCO, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| LONG, PHILLIP | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/01/2019 |
| RAINES, STEPHEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/12/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 82% 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 $5.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 56% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Alabama Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 015115. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-20, 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.