Florence Nursing And Rehabilitation Ctr, LLC
2107 Cloyd Blvd, Florence, AL 35630 · For profit - Individual · 147 certified beds · (256) 766-5771 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its last standard health inspection was over 6 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.9% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.2% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 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 | 3.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.3% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 35.6% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.4% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.1% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.6% | 21.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.8% | 80.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.9% | 24.8% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.4% | 11.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.47 | 1.96 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.04 | 1.70 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
56.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 353 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.8% 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 95 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 0.56 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 56.8%CMS range 51.0–61.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.7%CMS range 11.0–17.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 55.8% | 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 | 52.6% | 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 | 54.7% | 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 | 97.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 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 | 1.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 11.1%CMS range 7.6–15.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 147 beds and averages 137.6 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.43 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 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 2.80 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.68 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.01 to 0.59 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 6 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2020-01-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, review of a facility policy titled, Labeling and Dating Foods (Date Marking), Cleaning Instructions: Ice Machine and Equipment, Cleaning Instructions: Slicer, and review of the 2017 U.S. (United States) Public Health Service Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1. outdated food was not stored in the walk-in cooler; 2. the ice machine was clean and free of a build-up of black substance; and 3. the meat slicer was clean and free from food particles between uses. These failures had the potential to affect 135 of 135 residents who received meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1)The facility policy titled, Labeling and Dating Foods (Date Marking), dated 2016, . Prepared food or opened food items should be discarded when: The food item is leftover for more than 3 days . A record review of the 2017 Food Codeby United State Public Health Service (USPHS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) included the following: 3-501-17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking. (B) .(G) of this section, refrigerated,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-01-14 · 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, interviews, medical review, and a facility document titled Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings, the facility failed to ensure: 1. a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Employee Identifier (EI) #1, washed or sanitized her hands after she gave Resident Identifier (RI) #87's oral medication, and prior to administering (RI) #87's eye drop medication, and 2. a Registered Nurse (RN), EI #2, did not wash or sanitize her hands after she removed her gloves from giving RI #110's oral medications, and prior to opening RI #110's door, and placing RI #110's inhalation medications in the medication cart drawer. This affected two of six residents observed during medication pass and two of six nurses observed during medication pass. Findings Include: A review of a facility document titled Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings, with last reviewed date of 4/29/2019, revealed . When to Perform Hand Hygiene . After touching a patient or a patient's immediate environment . Immediately after glove removal . 1. RI #87…
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 before2018-10-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled, Labeling and Dating Foods, the facility failed to ensure: 1. no outdated hot dog buns were on open shelving in the facility kitchen; 2. no outdated lettuce and sweet and sour sauce were stored in kitchen walk-in cooler and 3. no outdated bacon bits were stored in a facility unit nourishment room refrigerator. These failures had the potential to affect 127 of 127 residents receiving meals from dietary and one of one unit refrigerator observed with outdated bacon bits. Findings Include: 1. The facility's policy titled, Labeling and Dating Food,' 2016 Edition documented: . Procedure . 4. Prepared food or opened food items should be discarded when: . the food item is leftover for more than 3 days . the food item is older than the expiration date. On 10/22/18 at 3:45 PM, during the initial tour of facility kitchen with the Employee Identifier (EI) #2, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) and EI # 3, the Kitchen Manager, the following observations were made: A package of hot dog buns was stored on an open shelving. 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 · D2018-10-24 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review and review of a facility policy titled, COMPREHENSIVE PERSON CENTERED CARE PLANS, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident Identifier (RI) #112's baseline care plans addressed smoking and 2. RI #186's baseline care plans addressed the use of a foley catheter and antipsychotic medications. This affected RI #112 and RI #186, two of 25 sampled residents. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, COMPREHENSIVE PERSON CENTERED CARE PLANS, with a history date of 3/18, documented: POLICY: Each resident will have a person centered plan of care to identify problems, needs, strengths, preferences, and goals that will identify how the interdisciplinary team will provide care. Baseline Care Plan - initial plan of care to be used upon admission . PROCEDURE: .3. A Baseline Care Plan is to be developed within 48 hours. Develop initial goals based upon admission orders/resident's input and record on the Baseline Care plan. 1.) RI #112 was admitted to the facility on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-10-24 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for the use of Resident Identifier (RI) #186's foley catheter and foley catheter care after admission to the facility on [DATE]. This affected RI #186, one of three residents sampled with catheters. Findings Include: RI #186 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: Aftercare Following Joint Replacement Surgery, Presence of Right Artificial Hip Joint, History of Falling, Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation, Unspecified Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease, Unspecified Heart Failure, Other Specified Hypothyroidism, Unspecified Dementia Without Behavioral Disturbance and Unspecified Hyperlipidemia. A review of RI #186's medical record revealed no orders for a foley catheter or cath care until 10/23/18, seven days after admission to the facility. On 10/24/18 at 5:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #1, Director of Nursing (DON). EI #1 was asked, was RI #186 admitted with 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 · D2018-10-24 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #186's medical record contained an appropriate medical diagnosis to justify the continued use of a foley catheter after admission to the facility on [DATE]. The facility further failed to ensure catheter care was provided for RI #186 on 10/16, 10/17, 10/18, 10/19, 10/20 and 10/22/18. This affected RI #186, one of three residents sampled with catheters. Findings Include: RI #186 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: Aftercare Following Joint Replacement Surgery and Presence of Right Artificial Hip Joint. A review of RI #186's medical record revealed no diagnosis to justify the continued use of a foley catheter. Further review of the medical record revealed, no documentation of catheter care being provided on 10/16, 10/17, 10/18, 10/19, 10/20 and 10/22/18. On 10/24/18 at 5:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #1, Director of Nursing (DON). EI #1 was asked,…
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 before2018-01-25 · 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, record review of The 2013 Food Code, Food & Nutritional Services' policy/procedure manual and staff interviews, the facility failed to assure: 1. holding temperature of hot foods were maintained at 135 degrees or above when served from the trayline, 2. the tea urn spigot was cleaned every 24 hours and 3. utensils (flatware) were cleaned and air dried to prevent cross-contamination and food-borne illness. The above practices posed the potential for food contamination and compromised food safety. This had the potential to affect all 141 residents on the diet list who received food from dining services. Findings include: 1. The 2013 Food Code by the United States Public Health (USPH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) included the following: 3-501.16 Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Hot and Cold Holding. (A) Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, or when time is used as the public health control as specified under §3-501.19, and except as specified under ¶ (B) and in ¶ (C ) of this section, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD shall…
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 · D2018-01-25 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure RI (Resident Identifier) #109's pillowcase was free of a brown colored substance. This was observed on 01/24/2018. This affected one of 28 sampled residents whose bed linens were observed. Findings Include: RI #109 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Hypertension. On 01/24/2018, during a Resident Council meeting, RI #109 stated his/her bed was never made and his/her pillowcase had dried blood on it for two weeks. On 01/24/2018 at 4:08 p.m., the surveyor went to RI #109's room and with permission observed a brown substance on the pillowcase. On 01/24/2018 at 4:15 p.m., RN (Registered Nurse) Unit manager, EI (Employee Identifier) #4 observed RI #109's pillowcase. EI #4 was asked did RI #109's bed linens and pillowcase look clean. EI #4 said RI #109's pillowcase did not look clean. EI #4 was asked who was responsible for ensuring resident's bed linens were clean as well as pillowcases. EI #4 said CNA's (Certified Nursing…
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 · D2018-01-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 a review of a facility policy titled, Smoking Policy, and a facility document titled, SMOKING SAFETY EVALUATION, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete a smoking evaluation on RI (Resident Identifier) #95, a resident identified as a smoker. This affected one of two sampled residents identified as smokers. Findings Include: RI #95 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Specified Surgical Aftercare, Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension. A review of RI #95's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/02/2017, revealed the resident had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, which indicated RI #95 was cognitively intact. Further review of RI #95's MDS revealed the resident was assessed as a current tobacco user. A review of a facility policy titled, Smoking Policy with a revised date of 01/2017, revealed the following: .Procedure: 1 .all residents who wish to smoke will be assessed upon admission and as…
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 before2018-01-25 · 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 and review of facility policies titled, HAND WASHING, NASAL INHALATION ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES and STANDARD PRECAUTIONS and review of POTTER AND [NAME], FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, NINTH EDITION, the facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse: 1. changed gloves and washed her hands after administration of nasal spray and before administration of an inhaler to Resident Identifier (RI) #72, 2. cleaned RI #72's nasal spray container after contact with resident's nares and 3. washed her hands after cleaning RI #72's nebulizer reservoir and removing her gloves and before obtaining RI #72's vital signs. The facility further failed to ensure a Certified Nursing Assistant: 1. did not place clean gloves on an unclean counter for use during incontinence care and catheter care for RI #93, 2. washed her hands when removing gloves and before applying clean gloves during incontinence care for RI #93 and 3. washed her hands after providing incontinence care and removing gloves before picking up…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Alabama Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 015169. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2020-01-14, 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.