Marion Regional Nursing Home
184 Sasser Drive, Hamilton, AL 35570 · Non profit - Corporation · 79 certified beds · (205) 921-6340 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (21% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2025
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
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 4 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 | 22.4% | 12.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.8% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.1% | 12.1% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 37.2% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.1% | 5.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.2% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.6% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 50.0% | 80.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.26 | 1.96 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.51 | 1.70 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.05 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 79 beds and averages 62.0 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 17 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 4.26 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.21 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.51 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.50 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.44 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 21% 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.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-02-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide 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, record review, and review of a facility policy titled, Nebulizer Masks, Tubing and Bag Protocol, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #13's oxygen tubing was labeled/dated; and further failed to ensure RI #34, RI #37, and RI #263's nebulizer masks were covered when not in use. This deficient practice affected four of five residents sampled for respiratory care. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Nebulizer Masks, Tubing and Bag Protocol, with a last modified date of 02/12/2025, documented: . Rationale: To provide infection control and protection for residents using nebulizer treatments. Policy: It is the policy . that nebulizer masks and tubing should be dried and stored when not in use. Procedure: . 2. The residents name . and the date should be written on the bag, tubing and mask . RI #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. RI #13's physicians orders dated 11/20/2024…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of a facility policy titled Resident's Rights: Privacy and Confidentiality the facility failed to honor resident privacy rights when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #10 failed to knock on doors and gain permission to enter, before entering resident rooms on 02/18/2025 during the evening dining observation. This affected Resident Identifier (RI) #28 and RI #32, two of 19 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled Resident's Rights: Privacy and Confidentiality with a review date of 03/2020, revealed the following: . Policy: It is the policy of [NAME] Regional Nursing Home that residents' confidentiality and privacy should be protected. Procedure: 1. Residents . have the right to- . b) Privacy while in their rooms. Staff should respectfully knock on doors or verbally announce the request to enter the room prior to entry. RI #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. 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 · D2025-02-20 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident record review, interviews, review of a facility policy titled Protecting Residents from Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, review of the facility investigative file, and review of a Facility Reported Incident (FRI) to the State Agency, the facility failed to protect Resident Identifier (RI) #25's right to be free from abuse on 09/14/2024 when RI #313, a resident with unmanaged behaviors, hit RI #25 in the face. RI #25 described the incident as abusive. This deficient practice was cited as a result of the investigation of the complaint/report number AL00048923 and affected RI #25, one of two residents sampled for abuse. Cross Reference F740 Findings include: A facility policy titled, Protecting Residents from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation documented: . Policy: It is the policy of [NAME] Regional Nursing Home to protect residents from abuse. This includes but is not limited to verbal, physical, mental/emotional, . Procedure: . When protecting residents from abuse, utilizes the following…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 Manual, the facility failed to ensure: 1) Resident Identified (RI) #23's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] section A1500 was coded accurately to reflect RI #23's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II. 2) RI #25's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] section A1500 was coded accurately to reflect RI #25's PASRR Level II. This deficient practice affected two of 19 sampled residents whose MDS was reviewed. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2024, revealed the following: . A1500: Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) . Code 1, yes: if PASRR Level II screening determined that the resident has a serious mental illness and/or ID/DD or related condition 1) RI #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, resident record review, and review of the facility's investigative file, the facility failed to develop and implement immediate interventions to prevent other residents from being affected by Resident Identifier (RI) #313's behaviors. The facility failed to develop targeted care plans to assist in resolving RI #313's behaviors, failed to monitor RI #313 for behaviors that led to abuse, and failed to assess RI #313's required level of supervision to protect other residents. On 09/13/2024, RI #313's Nurses' Notes documented that RI #313 was exhibiting hostile behavior, resisting care, taking others' belongings, and becoming very agitated when requests were made. On 09/14/2024, RI #313 continued to have behaviors including taking RI #25's, his/her roommate's, belongings which resulted in RI #313 hitting RI #25 in the face. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00048923 and affected RI #25 one of six residents sampled for behavior concerns. Cross…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-20 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #34's medical record, and a facility policy titled Psychotropic Medication Utilization the facility failed to ensure RI #34 was not ordered and administered a PRN (as needed) antipsychotic medication, Haldol, for greater than 14 days, without documented rationale in the resident's medical record for the continued use of the PRN antipsychotic medication. This deficient practice affected RI #34, one of six residents sampled for unnecessary medications. Findings include: A review of a policy titled Psychotropic Medication Utilization documented: Rationale: To provide guidelines for the utilization of psychotropic medications. 10. Psychotropic medications used on a PRN (as needed) basis should have a specific condition and indication for the PRN use documented in the resident's medical record and is subject to limitations as noted: . a. PRN orders for psychotropic medications, excluding antipsychotics should be limited to no more than 14 days, unless the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes it is appropriate to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-20 · 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, record review, and review of the facility's Procedure for Passing Meal Trays, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #10 distributed residents' meal trays in a manner to prevent the spread of infection between himself and residents. CNA #10 failed to perform hand hygiene before handling and delivering dinner meal trays for Resident Identifier (RI) #28 and RI #32 from the meal cart on 02/18/2025 during the evening dining observation. This deficient practice affected RI #28 and RI #32, two of 19 sampled residents. Findings Include: Review of an undated procedure form titled, Procedure for Passing Meal Trays, revealed the following: . 5. Staff should perform hand hygiene between each resident . RI #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 02/18/2025 at 5:11 PM the surveyor observed CNA #10 removed RI #32's dinner meal tray from the meal cart without performing hand hygiene. CNA #10 entered RI #32's room,…
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 · D2019-09-19 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, medical record reviews and review of a facility policy titled, Care Plan Policy, the facility failed to ensure baseline care plans were developed within 48 hours of admission for the following Resident Identifier (RI) #'s and investigated care areas: 1. RI #36, tube feeding, risk for falls, nutrition, range of motion, 2. RI #30, Dementia, psychotropic medications, 3. RI #12, oxygen use, 4. RI #18, risk for falls, Dementia, psychotropic medication, 5. RI #21, Dementia, psychotropic medications, and 6. RI #34, tube feeding and insulin use. This deficient practice affected RI #36, 30, 12, 18, 21 and 34, six of 16 residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings Included: A review of a facility policy titled, Care Plan Policy, with a Revised Date: 9/19, revealed: . Procedure: . A baseline care plan should be developed within 48 hours of a resident's admission . Must provide the resident and their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan. All assessment and care plan…
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 before2019-09-19 · 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, interview, medical record review and review of a facility policy titled, Oxygen Concentrator Humidifier Bottles, Tubing and Filter Care, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #12 had water in his/her humidifier bottle during three of three days of the survey. This deficient practice affected RI #12, one of three residents sampled for oxygen (O2) use. Findings Included: A review of a facility policy titled, Oxygen Concentrator Humidifier Bottles, Tubing, and Filter Care, with a last reviewed date of 9/19, revealed: . Procedure: 1. O2 concentrator humidifier bottles will be checked each 12 hr (hour) shift by the LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) for adequate water levels. Task will be verified by a Long Term Task Order. RI #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis to include, Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease, unspecified. A review of RI #12's medical record document titled, Order List By Department, revealed: . Respiratory Care . Oxygen Therapy . Date…
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 · D2019-09-19 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and a facility document titled Annual Training Protocol, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #1, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), received the mandatory 12 hours of Continuing Education Units (CEUs) for annual training, to include dementia and abuse training, from 7/25/2018 to 7/25/2019. This affected one of five CNA's whose mandatory 12 hours of CEUs for annual training to include dementia and abuse training that were reviewed. Finding include: A review of a facility document, titled Annual Training Protocol with no date, revealed . 3. Annual Education Topics: * Abuse * Dementia . 4. Training for Nurse Aides will be 12 hours per rolling year from hire date. A review of EI #1's mandatory annual 12 CEU training, which was to include Dementia and Abuse Training, revealed that EI #1 was hired to the facility on 7/25/2016. From 7/25/2018 to 7/25/2019 she had received only 7.5 CEU hours, which did not include Dementia and Abuse training. EI #1 did not meet the required mandatory annual 12 CEUs, to include with Dementia and Abuse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2018-08-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of a facility policy titled FOOD AND SUPPLY STORAGE and REFRIGERATED STORAGE LIFE OF FOODS, the facility failed to ensure chicken salad in a black plastic container and 4 pieces of toffee cake in a disposable plate, with no date documented for date opened and no use by date, were dated. This had a potential to affect sixty-three out of sixty-five residents receiving meals from dietary. Findings Include: A review of the facility policy titled FOOD AND SUPPLY STORAGE, with a revised date of 1/18, documented: .PROCEDURES: .The words .use-by . should precede the date .Foods past the use by .date should be discarded .label and date unused portions . A review of the facility policy titled REFRIGERATED STORAGE LIFE OF FOODS, with a date of January, 2018, documented: .Label when product is opened. The time listed is added to today's date . Food Item . Commercially Prepared Salads .OPENED .+3 days . On 08/06/18 at 4:30 p.m., during the kitchen tour with Employee Identifier (EI) #1, an Interim Dietary Manager, the surveyor observed the following…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-08-08 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and a facility policy titled, Resident Rights :Privacy and Confidentiality, the facility failed to ensure RI (Resident Indentifer) #213 MAR ( Medication Administration Record) computer screen was not left up/unlocked and open for public view. This deficient practice affected RI #213 one of 16 sampled residents. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Resident Rights :Privacy and Confidentially, with a revised date of 10/17 revealed: Rationale: To provide guidelines to help preserve and protect residents confidentiality and privacy Procedure: .(B) Confidentiality for his/her personal and clinical records. Ensure that Med cart lab top screens are not easily viewed by anyone other than Nurse administering medications and that screen is neutral or top is closed when exiting workstation. Ensure that .computers are logged off before exiting workstation. RI #213 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included major depressive disorder, recurrent severe…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-08-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and a review of a facility policy titled Medication Administration, the facility failed to ensure a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), did not touch inside the medication cup, water cup, and pill crush bag with her bare finger when administering medication to Resident Identifier (RI) #61. This affected one of two residents observed during medication administration who received medication by Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) Tube. Finding Include: RI #61 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Unspecified Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease, Esophageal Obstruction, and Encounter for Attention to Gastrostomy. Review of a facility policy titled Medication Administration last revised date September 2015, revealed, . Procedure: . Medication Administration: . 5. Medications should be given maintaining aseptic technique. Inside the medicine souffle cup, plastic med cup, or crush pouch should not be touched. On 8/7/18 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.
“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 NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH SERVICES — 2 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes:
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 1 home this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARION REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/15/2025 |
| NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH SERVICES INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/02/2000 |
| NOBLES, SHARON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/13/2017 |
| TOPPIN, BRUCE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/1997 |
| SPEES, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/01/2014 |
| WRIGHT, ANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/04/2021 |
| MOFFETT, MITCHELL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/21/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 015167. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-20, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.