No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Northside Health Care

700 Hutchins Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35901 · For profit - Corporation · 115 certified beds · (256) 543-7101 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (256) 543-7101 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
$221,520 in federal fines
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection 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
Worth asking about
  • the CMS record shows $221,520 in federal fines (most recent 2025-07-26)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
  • 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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1026 Goodyear Ave Ste 201 · (256) 467-4477 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
100 Medical Center Dr · (256) 492-7407 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Da Oak0.5 mi
209 Oakleigh Dr
Park
236 Goldenrod Ave · (256) 549-4738 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
505 Goldenrod Ave

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased13.0%12.0%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.0%5.4%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.4%1.0%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.4%2.4%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.3%1.4%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.6%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.6%3.3%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.0%12.1%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication23.4%24.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.8%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.6%5.4%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control11.2%12.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table28.0%21.2%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.3%2.0%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.0%80.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.6%24.8%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.9%11.3%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.261.961.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.041.701.80better

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.

47.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 57 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

47.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
48.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.41U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.18hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 48.6% 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 37 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 0.41 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 71% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF47.1%CMS range 35.6–58.451.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.8%CMS range 6.5–14.610.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge48.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge54.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge59.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting97.6%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.2%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.2%CMS range 4.6–13.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.351.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.67
RN hours/ resident / day
0.68
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.39
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.73
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.33
RN hoursweekends
56.0%
Total nursing turnover
55.6%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 115 beds and averages 105.6 residents a day — about 92% 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 3.73 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.39 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 3.19 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2019-10-17)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2018-09-06)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2019-10-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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, review of the 2017 Food Code, and a facility policy titled, Tray Line and Meal Service Temperatures, dietary staff failed to ensure: 1) the temperatures of food items on the tray line were checked prior to service; 2) thermometers were accurately calibrated prior to use; 3) staff did not handle ready-to-eat food with bare hands; 4) staff washed their hands prior to the application of gloves; and 5) food found to be below recommended temperatures, was reheated to 165 degrees Fahrenheit (F) prior to service. These deficient practices had the potential to affect 87 residents for whom meals were prepared and served at the time of this survey. According to the facility's RESIDENT CENSUS AND CONDITIONS OF RESIDENTS form, the census at the time of the survey was 90. Findings Include: 1) A facility policy titled, Tray Line and Meal Service Temperatures, with an effective date of 08/01/12, specifies: .Temperatures of food items held on the service line will be recorded . All hot food must be held at temperatures above 135 degrees F; . All cold foods will be…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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, record review and review of the Assure Platinum Glucometer Study Guide, the facility failed to ensure a medication nurse, Employee Identifier (EI) #1, wore gloves while performing a finger stick blood glucose test on Resident Identifier (RI) #61 on 10/16/19, during the evening medication pass observation. Findings Include: Review of an undated Assure Platinum Glucometer Study Guide, revealed the following: BLOOD GLUCOSE TESTING Obtaining a Drop of Blood Note . We advise healthcare professionals to wear gloves during blood testing . RI #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. RI #61's Order Summary Report for 10/2019, revealed RI #61 was to receive blood glucose testing before meals and at bedtime. On 10/16/19 at 3:50 p.m., the surveyor observed EI #1 gather supplies to check RI #61's blood sugar. After washing her hands, EI #1 wiped the third finger on RI #61's left hand with an alcohol prep. EI #1 removed a glucometer from 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2018-09-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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, review of the 2017 U.S. (United States) Public Health Service Food Code and review of facility policies titled Dry Storage, Dietary Food Handling and Water Temperature for Dishwashing Machines, the facility failed to ensure: (1) dented cans were not stored with other canned goods; (2) an opened jar of jelly had a use by date on it; (3) a container of barbeque sauce did not have sauce on the outside of the container; (4) the tips of the thermometers were not touching the bottom of the glass and the thermometer was not submerged under water during calibration; (5) a cook did not place the handle of the tong on top of a pan of rolls after she touched the handle with her bare hands; (6) grease was not on top of the oven; (7) dust like particles were not on the back of the oven fan and on a book above the toaster; (8) plate warmers and covers were air dried; and (9) a cook did not place her bare hands on the inside of plate covers. These deficient practices were observed on two of three days of the survey, and had the potential to affect all 88…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2018-09-06 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure 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 observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #55's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/20/18, reflected RI #55 was receiving Dialysis services. This deficient practice affected RI #55, one of 40 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings Include: RI #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses to include End Stage Renal Disease and Dependence on Renal Dialysis. A review of RI #55's Quarterly MDS assessment, with an ARD of 08/20/18, did not identify RI #55 as having received Dialysis services during this assessment period. A review of RI #55's September 2018 Physician Orders documented: . Dialysis @ (at) (name of Dialysis center) Tues (Tuesday)/Thur (Thursday)/Sat (Saturday) . 09/05/18 at 08:45 a.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with RI #55. RI #55 shared with the surveyor he/she went to Dialysis on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. At…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2018-09-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed for RI (Resident Indentifier) #241, a resident who required the use of Oxygen (O2). This deficient practice affected RI #241, one of three sampled residents who required the use of O2. Findings include: RI # 241 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Respiratory Failure, Unspecified with Hypoxia. On 09/6/18 at 7:55 a.m., the surveyor observed the resident with O2 on. On 0 9/6/18 at 3:11 p.m., a review of RI #241's care plans revealed the facility had not developed a care plan to address RI #241's O2 use. On 09/06/2018 at 4:08 p.m., an interview was conducted with EI (Employee Identifier) #5, Director of Nurses (DON). EI #5 was asked if RI #241 used O2. EI #5 said, Yes. EI #5 was asked if RI #241 had a care for the use of O2. EI #5 said, No. EI #5 was asked what was the rationale for having a care plan. EI #5 said, To provided the care (he/she) requires.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-09-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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, record review, and review of PERRY & [NAME], 9th Edition, Clinical Nursing Skills & Techniques, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #3's nebulizer face mask and reservoir cup were rinsed and dried after receiving a nebulizer treatment from a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). This affected 1 of 1 resident observed receiving a nebulizer treatment and 1 of 6 nurses observed during medication administration pass. Findings Include: A review of PERRY & [NAME] 9th Edition, Clinical Nursing Skills & Techniques, Chapter 21, Page 564, documented .When medication is completely nebulized .Rinse nebulizer cup .Dry completely .Proper storage reduces transfer of microorganisms . RI #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #3's Order Review Report for September 2018 documented a diagnosis of Pnuemonitis Due To Inhalation Of Food and Vomit. RI #3's September 2018 Medication Administration Record documented orders for Duoneb nebulizer treatments every six hours. 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2017-08-17 · tag F0371 — widespread
    Store, cook, and serve food in a safe and clean way.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility policy titled Refrigerated Storage, the facility failed to ensure raw beef shoulder, raw pork tenderloin, and open sandwich meat were not stored in the same container in the walk-in cooler, creating the potential for cross-contamination. This had the potential to affect 89 of 92 residents in the facility, identified by the facility as receiving meals from the dietary department. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Refrigerated Storage, effective 06/01/2013, revealed the following: .PROCEDURE . 3. If it is necessary to store fresh and cooked food in the same refrigerator, the cooked foods should be . stored above the fresh foods. 4. Raw meats, poultry, and fish . each type of meat placed in a separate pan . On 08/15/2017, during the initial tour of the kitchen at 6:37 p.m., a plastic bin containing multiple types of meat was observed in the walk-in cooler. Dietary staff identified the meats as an uncooked beef shoulder, uncooked pork tenderloin, and multiple packages of luncheon meat. Two of the luncheon…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2017-08-17 · tag F0323 — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provide adequate supervision to prevent avoidable 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 observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure: 1) the residents and/or their representatives were informed of the risks and benefits related to the use of side rails prior to installation; and 2) Resident Identifier (RI) #8 did not have a full side rail up on the room/exit side of the bed on 08/15/2017 and a fall mat was placed at the bedside. These failures affected RI #s 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, and 11, six of six residents reviewed for side rail use, and had the potential to affect all 57 of 92 residents residing in the facility, identified by the facility as using side rails. Findings include: 1) A facility-provided list identified 57 residents in the facility utilizing side rails. When asked for a facility policy related to the use of side rails, Employee Identifier (EI) #4, the Director of Nursing Services, provided a signed document indicating the facility did not have a policy on side rails. This document also indicated the facility did not obtain informed…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2017-08-17 · tag F0493 — pattern
    Establish a governing body that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies for managing and operating the facility and appoints a properly licensed administrator responsible for managing the facility
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, interviews, and review of the job description for the [NAME] President of Quality Management and Clinical Services, corporate staff failed to ensure a policy was developed and/or the facility procedure was revised for side rail use. This had the potential to affect all 57 of 92 residents in the facility, identified as utilizing side rails. Findings include: Cross Reference F323. Review of an undated job description for the [NAME] President of Quality Management and Clinical Services, Corporate Office, revealed the following: . KEY RESPONSIBILITIES . 4. Develops policies and procedures . A facility-provided list identified 57 residents in the facility utilizing side rails. When asked for a facility policy related to the use of side rails, Employee Identifier (EI) #4, the Director of Nursing Services, provided a signed document indicating the facility did not have a policy on side rails. This document also indicated the facility did not obtain informed consent/authorization prior to using side rails, unless it was considered a restraint. During an interview…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2017-08-17 · tag F0279 — isolated
    Develop a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure individualized care plan approaches were developed to address Resident Identifier (RI) #2's need for 3/4 (three quarter) side rails up times two. This affected one of 17 residents for whom care plans were reviewed. Findings include: RI #2 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Unspecified Osteoarthritis and Pressure Ulcer. RI #2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date of 06/05/2017, indicated RI #2 was cognitively intact and was totally dependent on one person for bed mobility and transfers. RI #2's EVALUATION FOR USE OF SIDE RAILS(S) ., dated 06/05/2017, indicated RI #2 required 3/4 side rails up times two at all times when in the bed due to weakness, balance deficit, and to improve bed mobility. However, RI #2's undated Care Guide, did not indicate RI #2's need for side rails. RI #2's falls care plan, with an onset date of 12/23/2011, included an intervention of . May use bedside…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2017-08-17 · tag F0280 — isolated
    Allow residents the right to participate in the planning or revision of care and treatment.
    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, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #8's Care Guide was updated to reflect the need for 3/4 (three quarter) side rails up times two per the resident assessment. This affected one of 17 residents for whom care plans were reviewed. Findings include: RI #8 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Muscle Weakness, Age-Related Osteoporosis, Unspecified Dementia, and History of Falling. RI #8's Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date of 05/03/2017, indicated RI #8 had moderately impaired cognition and required limited assistance of one person for bed mobility. RI #8's most recent EVALUATION FOR USE OF SIDE RAIL(S) ., dated 05/08/2017, indicated RI #8 required the use of 3/4 side rails up times two at all times when in bed related to weakness, balance deficits, and to improve bed mobility. However, RI #8's current Care Guide (used by staff to know what care is needed) indicated RI…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2017-08-17 · tag F0282 — isolated
    Provide care by qualified persons according to each resident's written plan of care.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #8's interventions of 3/4 (three quarter) side rails up times two and a fall mat at bedside were implemented. This affected one of six residents sampled for falls and side rails and one of 17 residents for whom care plans were reviewed. Findings include: RI #8 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Muscle Weakness, Age-Related Osteoporosis, Unspecified Dementia, and History of Falling. RI #8's Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date of 05/03/2017, indicated RI #8 had moderately impaired cognition and required limited assistance of one person for bed mobility. RI #8's comprehensive care plans included an intervention dated 01/11/2016 for .fall mat to right side of bed . due to risk of falls. RI #8's most recent EVALUATION FOR USE OF SIDE RAIL(S) ., dated 05/08/2017, indicated RI #8 required the use of 3/4 side rails up times two at all…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$221,520 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $221,520 — penalty dated 2025-07-26

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 VENZA CARE MANAGEMENT — 25 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 52.4+0.6 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.4+0.6 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 52.9+1.1 vs chain
Quality measures 2 of 52.8-0.8 vs chain
The other 24 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
1 of 5Decatur Health & Rehab CenterDecatur, AL 1 of 5Falkville Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterFalkville, AL 1 of 5Holston Rehabilitation And Care CenterKingsport, TN 1 of 5Regency House Of AlexandriaAlexandria, LA 1 of 5Rocket City Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterHuntsville, AL 1 of 5Smithfield Manor Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenSmithfield, NC 1 of 5Snow Hill Rehabilitation & Healthcare CenterSnow Hill, MD 2 of 5Canterbury Health Care FacilityPhenix City, AL 2 of 5Cullman Health Care CenterCullman, AL 2 of 5Delaware Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterGeorgetown, DE 2 of 5Essex Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterLouisville, KY 2 of 5Five Oaks Rehabilitation and Care CenterConcord, NC 2 of 5Lynwood Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterMobile, AL 2 of 5Oak Haven Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterCenter Point, LA 2 of 5Tri Cities Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterCumberland, KY 3 of 5Aiken Rehabilitation and Care CenterAiken, SC 3 of 5Brookshire Healthcare CenterHuntsville, AL 3 of 5Forest Manor Health And RehabNorthport, AL 3 of 5Rivers Edge Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterProspect, KY 3 of 5The Columns Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterJonesville, LA 4 of 5Folsom Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterCullman, AL 4 of 5Woodland Village Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenCullman, AL 5 of 5Adams Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterAlexander City, AL 5 of 5Haleyville Health Care CenterHaleyville, AL

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
AOP SNF OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 03/01/2023
CH AOP HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST48%since 03/01/2023
MS AOP HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST23%since 03/01/2023
SS AOP HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST23%since 03/01/2023
GOODMAN, MENUCHAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/01/2025
AOP OPCO MANAGER LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/01/2023
MELB OPCO MANAGER LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2025
VERTEX FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
TAYLOR, TINAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/18/2023
WIMBERLY, LEEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/05/2025
STRAUSS, SUSANIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/30/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

7 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.

$7.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-1.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$390K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 74%Medicare 7%Other / private 19%

About 74% 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 $390K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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

$327per resident / day
operating cost
$9,939per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$322per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Alabama
$8,334/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$8,787/mo
Nursing home (private)
$4,425/mo
Assisted living

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 015223. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2019-10-17, 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.

What to do next