Allen Health And Rehabilitation
735 South Washington Avenue, Mobile, AL 36603 · Non profit - Corporation · 119 certified beds · (251) 433-2642 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
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 6 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 7.3% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.9% | 5.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.1% | 1.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.5% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.9% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.9% | 24.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.3% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.0% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.8% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 37.1% | 80.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.90 | 1.96 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.60 | 1.70 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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 | 10.0%CMS range 6.6–14.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.78 | 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 119 beds and averages 79.7 residents a day — about 67% occupied, or roughly 39 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.62 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.06 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.78 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 30% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 6 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2020-02-21 · 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 record review, interviews, a facility policy titled Care Plans, the facility failed to update the care plan with interventions for Resident Identifier (RI) #87's decline in food and fluid intake. This affected RI #87 one of one residents reviewed for decline in nutritional and fluid intake. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled Care Plans with an effective date of 5/2018 revealed: . PROCESS: . b. Comprehensive Plan of Care - .The person centered care plan should be reviewed . with significant change of condition, or whenever a change is needed. RI #87 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Dysphasia, oropharyngeal phase and Unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance. A review of a facility form titled Oral Intake monitor Roster dated 1/27/2020 thru 2/15/2020 revealed Oral Intake Measurement . Breakfast . Breakfast Fluid Intake . Oral Intake Measurement Lunch . Lunch Fluid Intake . Oral Intake Measurement Supper . Supper Fluid Intake . with daily fluid…
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 · D2020-02-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on an observation and interviews the facility failed to ensure that a locked narcotic box in one of the medication room refrigerators was affixed and permanently attached to prevent removal. This was observed on 2/20/20 and affected one of three medication rooms observed. Findings Include: On 2/20/20 at 4:34 PM, the surveyor made an observation, along with the unit nurse, of the locked narcotic medication box on the east unit. The surveyor observed in the locked medication room the locked narcotic medication box within the locked refrigerator. The narcotic box was attached to a shelf in the refrigerator that was not anchored or permanently affixed. The whole shelf containing the locked narcotic medications box could be removed from the refrigerator. The locked box contained 11 vials of 2 milligrams /1 milliliter Ativan. On 02/20/20 at 4:41 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) # 9, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) was interviewed. EI #9 was asked, what did the locked narcotic box contain. EI #9 replied, 11 vials of 1 milligram Ativan for a resident. EI #9 was asked, where was this…
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 · F2019-01-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and review of the 2017 U.S. (United States) Public Health Service Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1) the flour bin had a date of when the flour was placed in the bin and a date to be used by on. This was observed on 01/28/19, during the initial tour of the facility. 2) food particles were not left on the meat slicer, as observed on 01/31/19. These deficient practices had the potential to affect 86 of 86 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1) On 01/28/19 at 5:33 p.m., during the initial tour of the kitchen, the surveyor observed the flour bin to not have a date or use by date on the bin. On 01/28/19 at 5:42 p.m., the surveyor asked the Dietary Manager (DM), Employee Identifier (EI) #4, when was the flour placed in the flour bin. EI #4 said on the 24 th of January, last Thursday. The surveyor asked EI #4 should there be a date when the flour was placed in the bin and a use by date on the bin. EI #4 said yes. On 01/31/19 at 09:49 a.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with EI #4. The surveyor asked EI #4 why…
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 · E2019-01-31 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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 interview, record review and review of a facility policy titled Disposal of Medications Non-Controlled Medication Destruction, the facility failed to ensure the Non-Controlled Packet Medication Destruction forms contained the required signatures. This affected four of 11 months (January, February, May, and November of 2018) of the Non-Controlled Packet Medication Destruction forms reviewed. Finding Include: A facility policy titled Disposal of Medications Non-Controlled Medication Destruction, dated 03/11, revealed: . Procedures . 3. The registered nurse and/or pharmacist witnessing the destruction, or their preparation for environmental service pickup, ensures that the following information is entered on the Record of Medication Destruction form . : J. Signatures of witnesses, two witnesses required for non-controlled substances . On 01/31/19 at 2:02 p.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with Employee Identifier (EI) #1, the Director of Nursing (DON). The surveyor asked EI #1, according to the facility's policy, how many signatures should there be on the Non-…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-01-31 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1) Resident Identifier (RI) #9 was accurately assessed under Section M 0100 on RI #9's 11/06/18 Significant Change (SC) MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment as having Pressure Ulcers (PU); and 2) RI# 77 was accurately assessed under Section M 0100 on RI #77's 01/11/19 admission MDS assessment as having a PU. These deficient practices affected RI #9 and #77, two of 25 sampled residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings Include: 1) RI #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. RI #9's admission body audit, dated 07/09/18, revealed RI #9 was admitted with PU's to the left and right scapula, back of the right arm and the sacrum area. A review of RI #9's SC MDS assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/06/18, did not identify RI #9 as having a PU under Section M 0100 during this assessment period. On 01/30/19 at 2:47 p.m., the surveyor observed Employee Identifier (EI)…
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 · E2017-12-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and review of a facility policy titled, JOB DESCRIPTION, the facility failed to ensure the following were not observed during the survey: 1) uncapped rusted toilet bolts in RL (Room Locator) #s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, and East Unit resident bathroom, found on 2 of 3 Units; 2) dry green substance observed on pipes behind toilet in resident bathrooms in RL #s: 6, 8, and 1; 3) a loose faucet appliance in RL #14; 4) broken tiles in tubroom on East Unit; 5) a shower room on East Unit had black substance on the faucet plate; there was a black, green, and pink substance on the shower floor/wall; and pieces of white plastic bag was tied on the handrail in the shower; 6) an area of sheetrock was broken above the baseboard outside the East Unit shower; 7) the floor under the a/c (air conditioner) unit was missing tiles and there was a broken baseboard tile near the a/c unit of RL #10; 8) a thick yellow substance on a metal device attached to the wall was observed in resident bathroom, RL #7; 9) missing sheet rock in an open hall storage area of…
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 · D2017-12-21 · tag F0711 — isolatedEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
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 reviews, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled, Policy: Catheters, Urinary: Catheterization., the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for use of a urinary catheter. This affected RI (Resident Identifier) #66, one of twenty-one residents whose orders were reviewed. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Policy: Catheters, Urinary, with an effective date of 11/16, revealed: . Policy: Catheters, Urinary: Catheterization, . STANDARD: a physician's order should be obtained for the use of any catheter. A review of RI #66's medical record revealed a re-admission date of 9/12/17 with diagnoses to include Retention of Urine, Type II Diabetes Mellitus, and Congestive Heart Failure. A review of the Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment for RI #66, dated 11/21/17, revealed the resident was assessed as having a urinary catheter in use. A review of the December 2017 physician's orders for RI #66 revealed there was no order for a urinary catheter. During 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 · D2017-12-21 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 reviews, interview, and review of a facility document titled, PHYSICIAN RECOMMENDATIONS, the facility failed to ensure a pharmacy recommendation of dose reduction form was completed by the medical doctor or designee. This affected RI (Resident Identifier) #4, one of six residents whose psychotropic meds were reviewed. Findings Include: A review of a facility document titled, PHYSICIAN RECOMMENDATIONS, revealed the following directions for completion: . Please evaluate the current dose and consider a gradual taper to ensure this resident is using the lowest possible effective/optimal dose. The comments below may assist you in the documentation process. Please check the appropriate response and add additional information as requested: . A review of the medical record revealed RI #4 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include Vascular Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Congestive Heart Failure, and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. A review of the Annual MDS (Minimum…
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 · D2017-12-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, interview, and review of the facility policy titled, Medication Monitoring Medication Management, the facility failed to provide evidence of monitoring of the efficacy and potential side effects of psychotropic drugs. This affected RI (Resident Identifier) #s 4, 50, and 83, three of six residents whose psychotropic medications were reviewed. Findings Include: A review of the facility policy titled, Medication Monitoring Medication Management, with a copyright date of 2007, revealed: . In order to optimize the therapeutic benefit of medication therapy and minimize or prevent potential adverse consequences, facility staff, the attending physician/prescriber, and the consultant pharmacist perform ongoing monitoring for appropriate, effective, and safe medication use. When selecting medications and non-pharmacological interventions, members of the interdisciplinary team participate in the care process to identify, assess, address, advocate for, monitor, and communicate the resident's needs…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NOLAND HEALTH — 10 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADAMSON, MICHELE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/10/2017 |
| BRITTON, ISAAC | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/14/2007 |
| ESTEP, BARBARA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2024 |
| GOFF, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/02/1987 |
| ILIFF, TIMOTHY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2023 |
| JAMES, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/31/2022 |
| NELSON, DEBRA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/11/2016 |
| RENDA, NICHOLAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/26/2020 |
| SMITH, GEORGE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/25/2009 |
| WAGGONER, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/26/2020 |
| NOLAND HEALTH SERVICES, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2016 |
| BLACKWELL, CRYSTAL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/09/2025 |
| HALL, MATTHEW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/31/2022 |
| KENWRIGHT, KAREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/27/2017 |
| LEWIS, JACQUELYNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/08/2023 |
| SMOTHERS, KATHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/12/2021 |
| URBAN, KELLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2019 |
| INPATIENT CONSULTANTS OF ALABAMA, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2023 |
| MORRISON MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/01/2023 |
| NOLAND PHARMACY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| WARREN AVERETT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 43 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
5 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.
This home reported $327K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Alabama Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 015098. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2020-02-21, 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.