Diversicare Of Greensboro
616 Armory Street, Greensboro, AL 36744 · For profit - Corporation · 97 certified beds · (334) 624-3054 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 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 | 4.5% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.1% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.6% | 1.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.4% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.6% | 24.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.5% | 5.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 2.0% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.7% | 21.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.3% | 80.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.95 | 1.96 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.51 | 1.70 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
44.2% 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 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 21% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 44.2%CMS range 33.0–59.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 6.0–15.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 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 97 beds and averages 79.5 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.84 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.50 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.79 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 2.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.06 on weekdays — 25% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled Resident's Rights and Quality of Life, the facility failed to ensure the 100 hall and Resident Identifier (RI) #52's room did not smell strong of urine on three of three days of the survey. This had the potential to affect RI #52 and other residents on the 100 hall, one of four halls in the facility. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled Resident's Rights and Quality of Life with an effective date of 05/01/2012 revealed: POLICY STATEMENT . all residents have the right to a dignified existence . To receive services in a facility environment that is safe, clean, and comfortable with adequate space for all activities. RI #52 was admitted to the facility 06/07/2019 and had diagnoses to include Dementia. A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 12/18/2023 indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 9 which indicated RI #52 was moderately impaired in decision making abilities. The MDS further indicated RI #52 was occasionally incontinent of urine. 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 · D2024-02-01 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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, resident record review, and a facility policy titled, NEBULIZER STORAGE, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #26's nebulizer mask was covered when not in use. This affected RI #26, one of one resident sampled for respiratory care. Findings include: A facility policy titled NEBULIZER STORAGE, with an effective date of 8/2019 documented: . Policy: Storing of the nebulizer consist of dry storage in a zip loc bag. RI #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses to include Asthma. RI #26 had a physician order dated 01/24/2023 for the administration of Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution every six hours. On 01/30/2024 at 11:17 AM, RI #26's nebulizer machine was on the bedside dresser with a nebulizer mask uncovered. On 01/30/2024 at 4:45 PM, RI #26's nebulizer machine was on the bedside dresser with a nebulizer mask uncovered. On 01/31/2024 at 8:07 AM, RI #26's nebulizer machine was on the bedside dresser, with a nebulizer mask in a basket 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 · D2024-02-01 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record review, and the facility policy titled, Medication Administration, the facility failed to document respiratory treatments on Resident Identifier (RI) #26's Medication Administration Records (MAR). This deficient practice had the potential to affect RI #26, one of 19 residents for whom records were reviewed. Findings include: A facility policy titled Medication Administration, with a reviewed date of 07/2023, documented the following: . PROCEDURE: . Only licensed or legally authorized personnel who prepares a medication may administer it. This individual records the administration of medication on the resident's MAR/EHR (Medication Administration Record/Electronic Health Record) at the time the medication is given. RI #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses to include Asthma. RI #26 had a physician order dated 01/24/2023 for the administration of Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution every six hours. RI #26's January 2024 MAR had blank spaces where…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-12-12 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 a review of the facility policy titled, Enteral Nutrition, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #19 received the nutritional requirements recommended by the Licensed Dietician. This affected RI #19, one of two residents sampled for enteral nutrition. Findings include: A facility policy titled, Enteral Nutrition, effective date: January 01, 2016, included the the Policy statement . Adequate nutritional support . will be provided . as ordered. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: . 3. The Dietitian, . Physician and Nurse, will: . b. Determine whether the resident's current intake is adequate . 8. The Dietitian will monitor residents . and will make appropriate recommendations for . adequacy of enteral feedings. 14. Staff caring for the residents with feeding tubes will be trained . to recognize and report . b. Inadequate nutrition; . RI #19 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. A diagnosis included gastrostomy status. A review of 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-12 · 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 a facility policy titled, Catheter Care, Urinary', the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #23's catheter bag was not touching the floor. This affected one of two residents observed with a catheter. Findings include: A facility policy titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, with a effective date of January 1, 2016, revealed, . Infection Control . 2. b. Be sure catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor. RI #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. RI #23 had a diagnosis of retention of urine, unspecified. An observation was made on 12/10/19 at 02:44 p.m.; the resident was asleep in the bed. RI #23's catheter bag was observed lying flat on the floor face down, with the part that empties the urine touching the floor. On 12/11/19 at 03:29 p.m., an observation was made of RI #23's catheter bag. The bottom part of the catheter bag, where the urine is emptied, was touching the floor. On 12/11/19 at 03:39 p.m., an interview was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2018-10-18 · 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 facility policies titled, Hand-washing Guidelines, Hand Sanitization During Dishwashing, and Food Preparation and Service, the facility failed to ensure the staff washed their hands when entering the kitchen and during dishwashing and staff wore a hair restraint when entering the kitchen. This deficit practice had the potential to affect 75 out of 75 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Hand-washing Guidelines, with an effective date of 4/1/16, documented the following: . PURPOSE To prevent the spread of bacteria that may cause food borne illnesses . PROCESS: 1 Hands should be washed in the following situations: Every time an employee enters the kitchen; at the beginning of the shift, after returning from break; .After hands have touched anything unsanitary, . On 10/17/18 at 10:21 a.m., the survyor observed EI #2 putting away dishes. She then opened the door to the outside and stood outside. She then returned to the kitchen. During this observation EI #2 did not wash her…
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 · D2018-10-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interviews, and a review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans - Comprehensive Person Centered Care Plans, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #40's care plan was implemented to wear non-skid socks and a back brace . This affected one out of 18 residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings Include: A facility's policy titled, Care Plans - Comprehensive Person Centered Care Plans, with an effective date of November 28, 2016, revealed, Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 3. Each resident's comprehensive care plan is designed to : a. Incorporate identified problem areas; . g. Aid in preventing or reducing declines in the resident's functional status and/or functional levels; . RI #40 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of wedge compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra. A review of RI #40's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with a reference date of 8/22/18, indicated the resident had a fracture and had…
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 · D2018-10-18 · 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 observation, record review and staff interview and a facility policy titled, Medication and Treatment Orders, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #40's physician's orders were followed for a back brace to be worn when out of bed. This affected one out of fourteen resident whose physician orders were reviewed. Findings Include: A review was conducted of the facility's policy titled, Medication and Treatment Orders , with an effective date of January 1,2016. The document included, Policy Statement Orders for . and treatments will be consistent with principles of safe and effective order writing and following the MD (Medical Doctor) orders. RI #40 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of wedge compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra. A review of RI #40's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with a reference date of 8/22/18, indicated the resident had a fracture. Review of RI #40's October 2018 Physician Orders revealed an order for Compression…
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 before2018-10-18 · 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
Base on observation, staff interviews, and a facility's policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #7 did not turn off the faucet with her bare hands during handwashing after administering medication to a resident. This affected one out of eight nurses observed during medication administration. Findings Include: A facility's policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, with a revised date of 7-5-17, revealed: Policy Statement This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 2. All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, resident, and visitors Procedure Washing Hands 1. Vigorously lather hands with soap and rub them together, . 2. Rinse hands thoroughly under running water. 3. Dry hands thoroughly with paper towels and then turn off faucets with a clean, dry paper towel. On 10/16/18 at 4:01 p.m. EI #7 was observed washing and drying her hands, then turning the faucet…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE — 44 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 2.6 | +2.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 43; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DAC OPCO, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 05/13/2022 |
| DAC ACQUISITION LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 05/13/2022 |
| KOHN, BRIAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 05/13/2022 |
| BODIE, REBECCA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/13/2022 |
| KELLMAN, FRANKLIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 09/13/2024 |
| NEE, STEPHEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/20/2023 |
| RATNER, ERAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 09/13/2024 |
| WEISHAAR, MATTHEW | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/13/2022 |
| DIVERSICARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/13/2022 |
| LEE, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/08/2025 |
| REYNOLDS, TRENT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/06/2023 |
| AUR AHC COLONIAL HAVEN PROPCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/12/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 83% 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 $442K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Alabama Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 015396. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-02-01, 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.