Lafayette Extended Care
805 Hospital Street Southwest, Lafayette, AL 36862 · For profit - Corporation · 69 certified beds · (334) 864-8854 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- the CMS record shows $4,558 in federal fines (most recent 2024-01-30)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 6 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
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 4 to 2 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 | 8.5% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.3% | 5.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.1% | 2.4% | 2.0% | typical |
| 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 | 0.4% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.7% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.2% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.0% | 24.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.9% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.8% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 4.6% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.6% | 21.2% | 17.1% | typical |
* 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 0.02 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 1% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% 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 | 11.0%CMS range 6.0–17.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — 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. | — | ||
| 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 | 0.61 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 69 beds and averages 58.4 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 11 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 3.82 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.58 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 3.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.92 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
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 · D2020-01-22 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #64's medical record, the facility's WEEKLY SKIN REPORT FOR THE TIME PERIOD ENDING, 24 HOUR SHIFT REPORT and the policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Resident Property, Exploitation, and Injuries of Unknown Source, the facility failed to investigate a suspicious injury of unknown source. On 7/17/2019, RI #64 was observed to have a red and blue/green large bruise that was rectangular and covered most of the breast area from the nipple up and the chest wall. This deficient practice affected RI #64, one of one sampled resident identified by the facility as having an injury of unknown source. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Resident Property, Exploitation, and Injuries of Unknown Source with an effective date of 11/28/2016, documented . PURPOSE: To ensure the safety and well-being of each resident, the facility will promote and protect the rights of each resident. POLICY: . INJURIES OF UNKNOWN…
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 · D2020-01-22 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #64's medical record and the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Resident Property, Exploitation, and Injuries of Unknown Source, the facility failed to timely report an injury of unknown source to the State Agency. On 7/17/2019, RI #64 was observed to have a red and blue/green large bruise that was rectangular and covered most of the breast area from the nipple up and the chest wall. This injury of unknown source was not reported to the State Agency until 1/21/2020. This deficient practice affected RI #64, one of one sampled resident identified by the facility as having an injury of unknown source. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Resident Property, Exploitation, and Injuries of Unknown Source with an effective date of 11/28/2016, documented . PURPOSE: To ensure the safety and well-being of each resident, the facility will promote and protect the rights of each resident. POLICY: .…
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 · D2020-01-22 · 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 and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #43's medical record, the facility failed to ensure RI #43 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 #43, one of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: RI #43 was readmitted to the facility 8/27/2019. RI #43 has a medical history to include diagnoses of: Dementia with behavioral disturbance, Mood Disorder, Psychotic Disorder with delusions and Unspecified Psychosis. RI #43's PHYSICIAN ORDERS dated 8/28/2019, documented Haldol 2 mg (milligram) po (by mouth) prn (as needed) q6hrs (every six hours) for agitation. In an interview on 1/16/2020 at 4:42 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) #2, the Director of Nursing acknowledged RI #43's order for Haldol had not been renewed since it was ordered on 8/28/2019. When asked if the physician gave a rationale to continue use beyond…
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 · E2018-12-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 policy titled Labeling and Dating Foods . the facility failed to ensure all frozen items were sealed, labeled and dated in the walk in freezer. During the entrance tour of the kitchen on 12/18/18, an unlabeled and undated clear plastic bag of breaded okra was open and exposed the okra to the air in the walk in freezer. This had the potential to affect 65 residents who received meals from the kitchen. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled Labeling and Dating Foods . and dated 2016 revealed the following: Guideline: All foods stored will be properly labeled according to the following guidelines. Procedure: . 3. * Date marking for freezer storage food items . Once a package is opened, it will be re-dated with the date the package was opened and shall be used by the safe food storage guidelines . During the entrance observation of the facility kitchen on 12/18/18 at 9:15 AM, the walk-in freezer was observed with the Certified Dietary Manager, Employee Identifier (EI) #3. In the walk-in freezer was an unlabeled…
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 · D2018-12-19 · 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 and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #22's suprapubic urinary catheter and tubing was shielded from the view of other residents and visitors. This effected one of two residents with suprapubic catheter. Findings include: RI #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cervical Spinal Cord injury. A review of the December 2018 Physician's Orders with an order date 11/28/18 stated, . CHANGE SUPRA PUBIC CATH (CATHETER) Q (EVERY) MONTH ON THE 13TH (20 FRENCH (FR) CATH W(WITH)/30 ML (milliliters) H2O (water) BULB) . A review of RI #22's Care Plan for FOLEY CATHETER dated 12/31/16 revealed the presence of a suprapubic catheter. On 12/19/18 at 1:29 p.m. the surveyor observed RI #22's suprapubic catheter hanging on the bed frame without a covered bag to shield it from the view of other residents or visitors. On 12/19/18 at 3:06 p.m. an interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #4, Certified Nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-12-19 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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 record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #31's prescribed diet was followed. This affected one of four residents whose diets were reviewed. Findings Include: RI # 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes with Diabetic Autonomic (poly) Neuropathy, Gastroparesis, and Dependence on Renal Dialysis. A review of RI #3's December 2018 Physician Orders dated 12/7/2018, revealed a regular diet with double eggs and cheese with breakfast and no tomatoes, no potatoes and no bananas. An observation was made on 12/18/2018 at 6:00 p.m. RI #31's meal tray was observed for intake amount. RI #31's meal tray was noted to have hashbrowns. RI #31 said she/he did not eat them because they told her/him she/he could not have them. Employee Identifier (EI) #2, Director of Nursing (DON) was present and also observed RI #31's tray. On 12/19/2018 at 1:53 p.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with EI #2.…
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 · D2018-02-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure: (1) the amount of fluid allowed for Resident Identifier (RI) #35, a resident on dialysis and fluid restriction, was documented on the care plan; and (2) a care plan was developed for RI #15's no use of straws. These deficient practices affected RI #15 and #35, two of 19 sampled residents whose plans of care were reviewed. Findings Include: (1) RI #35 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis to include End Stage Renal Disease and Chronic Kidney Disease. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/03/17, revealed RI #35 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3 indicating severely impaired cognition. A review of RI #35's careplan titled Risk for complications related to Renal Failure requiring Dialysis did not specify the amount of fluids allowed for each discipline. The care plan failed to designate the amount of fluid restriction allowed. A review of RI…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-02-01 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Physician's Orders for Resident Identifier (RI) #15 to not have a straw was followed. This deficient practice affected RI #15, one of 19 residents whose Physician Orders were reviewed. RI #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnosis of Dysphagia, Oropharyngeal Phase. A review of RI #15's Plan of Treatment for Outpatient Rehabilitation, with an onset date of 04/23/16, documents: . 20. INITIAL ASSESSMENT . 0 (No) straws c (with) orders for Glucerna c meals . RI #15's Weekly Progress Note, with summary dates from 04/29/16 - 05/05/16, documented: . GOAL: . (2). Patient will tolerate thin liquids c 0 s/s (signs/symptoms) aspiration . Current: . via (by way of) cup rim - NO STRAWS . RI #15's February 2018 Physician Orders documented: . NO STRAWS. ALL THIN LIQUID FROM CUP RIM . On 01/31/18 at 8:57 a.m., the surveyor observed a no straws please sign posted over RI #15's bed. On 02/01/18 at 12:00 p.m., the surveyor…
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 · D2018-02-01 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such 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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to monitor the amount of fluid for Resident Identifier (RI) #35, a resident receiving Dialysis and on a 1500 cc (centimeter) fluid restriction. This affected RI # 35, one of three residents sampled for dialysis. Findings Include: RI #35 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis to include End Stage Renal Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease and Vascular Dementia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/03/17, revealed RI #35 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3 indicating severely impaired cognition. RI #35's February 2018 Physician Orders reveals an order for a 1500 cc (centimeter) fluid restriction. RI #35 was receiving hemodialysis Monday, Wednesday and Friday. A review of RI #35's chart, MAR (Medication Administration Record), care plan nor the CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) [NAME] revealed documentation of the daily amount of fluids RI #35 was receiving.…
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 · D2018-02-01 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 62 stock Bisacodyl Suppositories, with the expired date of 12/2017, were not stored in the refrigerator in the medication room. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility with a Physician's Order for Bisacodyl Suppositories. Findings Include: On 02/01/18 at 2:49 p.m., the surveyor made an observation of the medication room on the South Unit with Employee Identifier (EI) #7, a Licensed Practical Nurse. The surveyor observed a box of 62 stock Bisacodyl suppositories with an expiration date of 12/2017. The surveyor asked EI #7 should the expired suppositories be in the refrigerator. EI #7 said no. The surveyor asked EI #7 who was responsible for ensuring expired medications were not stored in the refrigerator. EI #7 said all of the nurses. The surveyor asked EI #7 what could be the result of a resident receiving an expired medication. EI #7 said they could have a reaction to or not get the full benefits of the medication. On 02/01/18 at 5:46 p.m., the surveyor conducted an…
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 · D2018-02-01 · 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 and interviews the facility failed to ensure: (1) Resident Identifier (RI) #20's nebulizer mask was stored properly; and (2) a Certified Nursing Assistant, Employee Identifier (EI) #8, did not touch Resident Identifier (RI) #56's cornbread with her bare hands while assisting RI #56 with the lunch meal 01/31/18. These deficient practices affected RI #20, one of two residents observed with a nebulizer mask, and RI #56 one of two residents observed being assisted with meals. Findings Include: (1) RI #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. RI #20's February 2018 Physician Orders documented: . ALBUTEROL - IPRATROPIUM 2.5 MG (milligram) - 0.5 MG 3 ML (milliliters) INHALATION SOLUTION. TID (three times a day) PRN (as needed) SOB (shortness of breath) . On 01/31/18 at 9:37 a.m., the surveyor observed RI #20's nebulizer mask lying on top of dresser drawer. The nebulizer mask was not in a covering at this time.…
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.
- No harm found · C2018-02-01 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure the survey results were posted in an area, on a bulletin board near the front door of the facility, which was accessible to all residents. This deficient practice was observed on three of three days of the survey, and had the potential to affect all residents in wheelchairs at the facility. Findings include: On 01/30/18 at 3:23 p.m., the surveyor observed a sign at the South hall nurses station which documented: State Survey Results Located on Bulletin Board at Front Door and Day Room. The survey resulted were posted near the top of bulletin board, not accessible to residents in wheelchairs. On 01/31/18 at 8:30 a.m., the surveyor observed that the survey result remained near the top of the bulletin board unaccessible to residents in wheelchairs. On 02/01/18 at 9:59 a.m., the survey results were observed by the surveyor to remain posted at the top of the bulletin board out of reach of residents in wheelchairs. On 02/01/18 at 5:25 p.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with the Administrator, Employee Identifier…
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.
- No harm found · C2018-02-01 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Daily Nurse Staffing Form consistently included the actual total hours worked by the nursing staff each shift. This was observed on three of three days of the survey, and had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. Findings Include: On 01/30/18 at 3:23 p.m., the surveyor observed the Daily Nurse Staffing Form. The form was dated 01/30/2018, the census was 65, and there were no total hours worked for staff on the form for the day, evening or night shifts. On 01/31/18 at 8:27 a.m., the surveyor observed the Daily Nurse Staffing Form. The form was dated 01/31/2018, the census was 64, and there were no total hours worked for staff on the form for the day shift. On 02/01/18 at 9:58 a.m., the surveyor observed the Daily Nurse Staffing Form. The form was dated 02/01/2018, the census was 64, and there were no total hours worked for staff on the form for the day shift. On 02/01/18 at 5:25 p.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with the Administrator, Employee Identifier (EI) #1. The surveyor…
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.
- 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
$4,558 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $4,558 — penalty dated 2024-01-30
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 PRIME HEALTH CARE ENTERPRISES — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 4.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 4.0 | -3.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRIME HEALTH CARE ENTERPRISES, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2004 |
| PRIME HEALTHCARE ENTERPRISE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/28/2004 |
| SERVISFIRST BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 03/28/2012 |
| BUTLER, YVONNE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2004 |
| CHAPMAN, ARCHIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/10/2004 |
| PRIME MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/18/2003 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.
About 85% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Alabama Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 015197. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2020-01-22, 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.