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

St Martin's In The Pines

4941 Montevallo Road, Irondale, AL 35210 · Non profit - Church related · 128 certified beds · (205) 956-1831 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 immediate-jeopardy citation1 Medicare payment denial
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

Worth asking about
  • inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
  • 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.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
7901 Crestwood Boulevard
Pharmacy
1675 Montclair Rd · (205) 592-2424 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1680 Montclair Rd · (205) 951-0611 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
4800 Montevallo Rd · (205) 956-1930

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 3 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 fell from 3 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating1★
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 increased13.6%12.0%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight18.1%5.4%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.4%1.0%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.7%2.4%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.1%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 injury2.3%3.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened13.5%12.1%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication23.6%24.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine87.2%94.8%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.2%5.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control14.1%12.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table20.2%21.2%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.9%2.0%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine31.3%80.3%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission27.1%24.8%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit8.5%11.3%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.071.961.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.441.701.80better

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.

41.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 85 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

41.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
43.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.40U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.17hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.14hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 43.1% 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 58 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 69% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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 SNF41.7%CMS range 33.8–50.751.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.8%CMS range 8.2–16.610.7%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 discharge43.1%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 discharge43.1%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 discharge36.2%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 identified96.5%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 setting95.2%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 discharge90.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF 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 worsened3.5%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 hospitalization6.7%CMS range 4.0–12.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.911.02Oct 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

0.72
RN hours/ resident / day
0.56
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.72
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.00
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.60
RN hoursweekends
58.2%
Total nursing turnover
67.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 128 beds and averages 97.8 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 30 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 4.00 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 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 3.68 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.13 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.60 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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 (2019-10-03)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2018-09-26)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · K2025-07-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to prevent a fire in a kitchen near residents. Specifically, kitchen staff placed plastic and foam containers in an oven on the second and third floor kitchens of Cottage B, causing the containers to melt and excessive smoke to [NAME] out of the oven into an area near residents.It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was related to 483.25(d)(1) (Accidents).The IJ began on 06/23/2025 at 11:46 AM when Food Service Worker (FSW) #24 placed five plastic containers and one foam to-go container holding food for a lunch meal into an oven set to the warm setting on the second floor of Cottage B. FSW #24 then proceeded to deliver the lunch meal to the third floor of Cottage B. There was then a strong smell of burnt plastic in the living area 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided baths/showers for 2 (Resident #70 and Resident #77) of 11 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs).Findings included:During an interview on 06/29/2025 at 5:53 PM, Director of Clinical Services (DCS) #12 stated they did not have a policy for ADL care; they only had a procedure. An undated form titled, CNA [Certified Nurse Aide] Bath & Shower Report, revealed, The following assessment is to be completed on all residents receiving a bath. The Charge Nurse will sign and verify each assessment for accuracy and completion. All wound and findings are to be addressed immediately by the Charge Nurse and forwarded to the Unit Manager and Treatment Nurse with follow up of a physician or Nurse Practitioner if needed. The bottom of the form included a place for the resident's name, the date, the name of the CNA who provided the bath or shower, and the name of licensed nurse who received the form.1. The admission Record revealed the facility admitted…

    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
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-18 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to have an effective pain management program for 1 (Resident #98) of 1 resident reviewed for pain management.Findings included:On 07/18/2025 at 6:03 PM, Corporate Director of Clinical Services (DCS) #12 stated the facility did not have a policy for pain management, but it was the resident's right to be free of pain.An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #98 on 09/05/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation of the right leg below the knee, peripheral vascular disease, chronic pain, and anxiety disorder. The admission record indicated the resident was discharged home with home health services on 09/25/2024.An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/09/2024, revealed Resident #98 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. The MDS indicated the resident frequently experienced…

    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
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-10-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    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 observation, interviews and review of a facility policy titled Section: SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL Subject: HAND HYGIENE, the facility failed to ensure the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) in the 3rd floor kitchen of Cottage A washed her hands before returning to the kitchen after assisting a resident. This had the potential to affect all 9 residents residing on the 3rd floor of Cottage A. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy Section: SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL Subject: HAND HYGIENE, revised 1/15, revealed: Policies: In the Food & Nutritional Services Department: All associates associated with the handling of food shall wash hands. Hands are washed with soap and water at the following times: . Before putting on gloves . After taking a break/when returning to the kitchen . After any other activity that may contaminate the hands . On 10/02/19 at 8:45 AM the surveyor conducted a kitchen observation in Cottage A on the 3rd floor. The surveyor observed Employee Identifier (EI) #4, CNA, cooking bacon and sausage. EI #4 removed her gloves and left the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-10-03 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure 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 observations, record review, interviews, and review of Fundamentals of Nursing, Ninth Edition, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #4's tube feeding bottle was labeled. This affected one of one resident sampled for tube feeding. Findings Include: Review of Fundamentals of Nursing, Ninth Edition, copyright 2017, Chapter 45 Nutrition, page 1082, revealed: . SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR NURSING SKILLS . When performing the skills in this chapter, remember the following points to ensure safe, individualized patient care. * Label enteral equipment with patient name and room number; formula name, rate, and date and time of initiation; and nurse initials . RI #4 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase. RI #4's [DATE] Physician Orders included an order for Glucerna 1.5 at 55 mL/hr (milliliters per hour) time 23 hours via Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy tube. On [DATE] at 11:09 a.m., the surveyor observed RI #4's tube feeding infusing. There 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2018-09-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    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 interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident Indentifier (RI) # 104's hospice care plan was revised when he/she was discharged from Hospice services. This affected Resident Identifier (RI) #104, one of 26 sampled residents for whom care plans were reviewed. Findings Include: RI #104 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of Vascular Dementia Without Behavioral Disturbance. A review of RI #104's Discharge Summary from Hospice revealed that the hospice start date was 12/11/2017, and the end date was 08/03/2018. A review of RI #104's Physician Order dated 08/03/2018 revealed: Discharge from Hospice due to prolonged prognosis. On 09/26/18 at 03:10 p.m., the surveyor reviewed RI #104's care plans, including the hospice care plan. There was no revision indicating RI #104 had been discharged from hospice services. On 09/26/18 at 04:28 p.m., an interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #7, a Registered Nurse/Resident Assessment Coordinator. EI #7 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-09-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    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 observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy titled, FOOD AND SUPPLY STORAGE PROCEDURES, the facility failed to ensure: 1. the kitchen staff air dried dishes, pots and pans; and 2. 17 four fluid ounce prune juice cups with a manufactured use by date of 09/07/2018 were not expired. These findings had the potential to affect all 9 residents living on the second floor in Cottage B and all ten residents living on the second floor in Cottage A. Findings Include: 1. On 9/25/18 at 9:55 a.m., Employee Identifier (EI) #5, Certified Nursing Assistant, hand dried with a paper towel three pots and pans, a metal bowl, a divided plate, four bowls and four plates, a serving tray, then placed them into the cabinets. On 9/26/18 at 1:32 PM EI #5 was interviewed. When asked how dishes, pots and pans were supposed to be dried after being washed, rinsed and sanitized, EI #5 said Air dried. EI #5 stated she had not air dried the dishes on 9/25/18. When asked what the potential for harm was in not allowing the dishes to air dry, EI #5 said, it Can cause bacteria. On 9/26/18 at 1:37…

    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 · F2017-08-24 · 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, review of the 2013 Food Code, review of the facility's policies for Cleaning of Food and Nonfood Contact Surfaces, and Sanitizing Food Contact Surfaces, and review of the manufacturer's instructions for Oasis 146 Multi-Quat Sanitizer; the facility failed to ensure: 1.) Food was frozen solid in the kitchenette freezer of Cottage A on the second floor, as observed on two of three days of the survey. This had the potential to affect 10 of 10 residents receiving meals from this kitchenette. 2.) The sanitizer concentration in the three-compartment pot and pan sink was verified on 8/23/17 per the manufacturer's instructions. This had the potential to affect all 116 residents receiving food from the main kitchen, 116 of 117 residents in the facility. 3.) The drain pipes of three food preparation sinks, one three-compartment pot and pan sink, and the dishwashing area were placed over floor drains with air gaps to prevent back-siphonage. This had the potential to affect all 116 residents receiving food from the main kitchen, 116 of 117 residents in the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2017-08-24 · tag F0372 — widespread
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, staff interview, a review of the 2013 Food Code, and a review of the facility's policy for Solid Waste Disposal, the facility failed to ensure the lid to one of two dumpsters was closed on 8/23/2017, which could result in the harborage and feeding of pests. The facility further failed to ensure that food residue, food-related trash, clutter, weeds, pinestraw, foul odor, and flies were not present in the area surrounding the dumpsters and oil refuse container. In addition, three of four side doors on the two dumpsters had a build-up of food residue under the side doors on the exterior walls of the dumpsters. This had the potential to affect 117 of 117 residents residing at the facility. Findings Include: A review of the 2013 Food Code by the United States Public Health Services (USPHS) and the Food and Drug Association (FDA) included the following: . 5-501-110 Storing Refuse, Recyclables, and Returnables. Refuse . shall be stored in receptacles . so that they are inaccessible to insects and rodents. 5-501.113 Covering Receptacles. Receptacles and waste handling…

    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 · E2017-08-24 · tag F0279 — pattern
    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, a facility policy titled, Baseline Care Plan, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed for: 1. incontinence care for RI (Resident Identifier) #s 4, 6, and 8. 2. the use of the Bi-pap machine for RI #s 1 and 4. 3. catheter care for RI #4. 4. the use of an antipsychotic medication for RI #6. 5. the managment of anxiety for RI #6. This affected RI #s 1, 4, 6, and 8, four of twenty four sampled residents. This was observed in three of four units of the facility that housed residents. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Baseline Care Plan, with a revision date of 2017, revealed: . Policy: The facility will develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care. 1. A review of the medical record for RI #4 revealed an admission date of 6/9/17 with diagnoses to include Chronic Obstructive…

    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 · D2017-08-24 · 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, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was followed for a sippy cup as ordered by the physician. This affected RI (Resident Identifier) #8, one of fourteen sampled residents. Findings Include: RI #8 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, Vascular Dementia, and Dysphagia. A review of RI #8's Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set), with an assessment reference date of 5/16/17, revealed RI #8 required extensive assistance with ADLs (Activities of Daily Living). RI #8 required limited assistance with eating. RI #8's Care Plan with a review date of 8/14/17 revealed, Nutrition/hydration risk related to chewing/swallowing difficulty, dx (diagnosis) of dysphagia, needs assistance/cueing at meals, dependence on staff for the provision of fluid intake and eating . Approaches * .Elder to use sippy cup with all liquids . A review of RI #8's July and August 2017 Physician Orders revealed, Elder is to use sippy…

    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
  • Potential for harm · D2017-08-24 · tag F0369 — isolated
    Provide special eating equipment and utensils for each resident who needs them.
    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 record reviews, including a facility policy titled, Section: RESIDENT FOOD SERVICES Subject: ADAPTIVE EATING EQUIPMENT, the facility failed to ensure an assistive device of a sippy cup ordered by the physician was provided for RI (Resident Identifier) #8. This was observed on 2 of 3 survey days. This affected RI #8, one of fourteen sampled residents. Findings Include: A facility policy with a revised date of 9/13 and titled, Section: RESIDENT FOOD SERVICES Subject: ADAPTIVE EATING EQUIPMENT, revealed, POLICY: Adaptive eating equipment will be available to any resident for whom the equipment would be beneficial in assisting the resident's ability to self-feed.Dining Services Department *Maintains a stock of adaptive equipment to include, but not be limited to, build-up flatware, scoop plates, no-spill cups, or as required by the community *Provide the adaptive equipment with meals and sanitizes them upon return. RI #8 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses…

    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 · D2017-08-24 · tag F0441 — isolated
    Have a program that investigates, controls and keeps infection from spreading.
    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 a review of a the facility policy titled, Perineal Care, the facility failed to ensure staff removed soiled gloves and washed hands before placing a clean adult brief on RI (Resident Identifier) #12, opening blinds, and opening RI #12's door to leave RI #12's room. This affected RI #12, one of six residents observed for incontinence care. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy titled, Perineal Care, with a REV. 6/02, 3/08, 7/12. POLICY Peri-Care is to be performed after each incontinent episode, EQUIPMENT . PROCEDURE . FEMALE ELDER . 3. Apply brief if needed. 4. Bag soiled items for laundry and place ., 5. Bag all throw-away items ., 6. Remove soiled gloves. 7. Reposition elder and re-open blinds, curtains, and door. NOTES: .Remember to remove gloves before touching linens, call light, or other items in the room. A review of RI #12's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease;…

    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

“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

No federal fines in the current CMS record. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

  • Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-08-29 for 3 days

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 52.6-0.6 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.5-0.5 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.0≈ chain avg
Quality measures 2 of 53.5-1.5 vs chain
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
1 of 5Diversicare Of BessemerBessemer, AL 1 of 5Diversicare Of HaysvilleHaysville, KS 1 of 5Diversicare Of MeridianMeridian, MS 1 of 5Diversicare Of Oak RidgeOak Ridge, TN 1 of 5Diversicare Of OxfordOxford, AL 1 of 5Diversicare Of RipleyRipley, MS 1 of 5Diversicare Of SedgwickSedgwick, KS 1 of 5Diversicare Of SouthavenSouthaven, MS 1 of 5Lampasas Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterLampasas, TX 1 of 5Windsor HouseHuntsville, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of AmoryAmory, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of ArabArab, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of BatesvilleBatesville, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of BoazBoaz, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of BrookhavenBrookhaven, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of ChanuteChanute, KS 2 of 5Diversicare Of Council GroveCouncil Grove, KS 2 of 5Diversicare Of EuporaEupora, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of FoleyFoley, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of MontgomeryMontgomery, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of Moss PointMoss Point, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of Pell CityPell City, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of TupeloTupelo, MS 3 of 5Chisolm Trail Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterLockhart, TX 3 of 5Diversicare Of Copper BasinCopperhill, TN 3 of 5Diversicare Of LulingLuling, TX 3 of 5Diversicare Of OneontaOneonta, AL 3 of 5Diversicare Of QuitmanQuitman, MS 3 of 5Diversicare Of RiverchaseBirmingham, AL 3 of 5Diversicare Of ShelbyShelby, MS 3 of 5Park PlaceSelma, AL 3 of 5Yorktown Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterYorktown, TX 4 of 5Baron House Of HueytownHueytown, AL 4 of 5Diversicare Of Big SpringsHuntsville, AL 4 of 5Diversicare Of HutchinsonHutchinson, KS 4 of 5Diversicare Of LanettLanett, AL 4 of 5Diversicare Of WinfieldWinfield, AL 4 of 5Hartford Health CareHartford, AL 5 of 5Diversicare Of GreensboroGreensboro, AL 5 of 5Diversicare Of LarnedLarned, KS

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
PINES OPCO HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 11/17/2023
DAC OPCO, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST50%since 10/31/2023
EL PINES LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST50%since 10/31/2023
RUDEMILLER, KYLEIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2024
STOCKER, BECKYIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 10/21/2024
KELLMAN, FRANKLINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/13/2024
KOHN, BRIANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/17/2023
RATNER, ERANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/13/2024
BODIE, REBECCAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/17/2023
NEE, STEPHENIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/17/2023
WEISHAAR, MATTHEWIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/17/2023
DIVERSICARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 11/17/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

$4.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-40.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 24%Medicare 7%Other / private 69%

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

$841per resident / day
operating cost
$25,552per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$599per 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 015433. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2019-10-03, 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