Father Purcell Memorial Exceptional Children's Ctr
2048 W Fairview Ave, Montgomery, AL 36108 · Non profit - Church related · 58 certified beds · (334) 834-5590 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (7% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.4% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 96.2% | 0.6% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.8% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.2% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.5% | 5.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.9% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 32.6% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
* 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 58 beds and averages 42.9 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 15 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.24 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.33 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 3.33 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.55 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.28 to 0.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 7% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2019-12-14 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #14's and RI #43's medical records, FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING NINTH EDITION, the MEDICATION ERROR REPORT, Employee Identifier (EI) #1's EMPLOYEE STATEMENT FORM and a complaint received by the Alabama State Survey Agency, the facility failed to ensure EI #1, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) administered medications to RI #43 in accordance with accepted standards of practice and the physician's orders. The Alabama State Survey Agency received a complaint which alleged, the nursing staff administered the wrong medications to RI #43. According to the complainant, RI #43 tested positive for medications of which the resident was not ordered to receive. During the 9:00 AM medication pass on 10/29/2019, EI #1, an LPN prepared medications for RI #14. As the LPN entered RI #14's room to administer the medications, she noticed RI #14 was not in the room; the resident was in the shower room. EI #1 placed the unlabeled cup of medications in the drawer of the medication…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2019-12-14 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — isolatedAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and review of the POSITION DESCRIPTION DIRECTOR OF NURSING, the Position Description ADMINISTRATOR, the Time Line for (Employee Identifier {EI} #1, FATHER PURCELL MEMORIAL MEDICATION GASTROSTOMY CHECK OFF and Father Purcell Memorial In-Service Education Program, the facility's Administrator, responsible for directing all aspects of the facility, and the Director of Nursing (DON), responsible for the overall function of the nursing department, failed to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted after becoming aware that Employee Identifier (EI) #1, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) had administered the wrong medications to Resident Identifier (RI) #14 and RI #43 on 10/29/2019. The administrative staff further failed to implement measures to ensure no other resident received the wrong medication after becoming aware RI #43 had been administered medications ordered for another resident, RI #14. During the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift on 10/29/2019, EI #1, the LPN prepared medications for RI #14, who resided in the room next to RI #43. As she entered the room to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-22 · 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 observation, record review, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled Catheter Care, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #144's catheter bag was not left uncovered and visible from the hallway on 12/20/2022. This affected RI #144, one of one resident sampled with an indwelling catheter. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled Catheter Care, updated 10/07/2021, revealed the following: .Policy: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents with indwelling catheters receive appropriate catheter care and maintain their dignity and privacy when indwelling catheters are in use. Policy Explanation: .2. Privacy bags will be available and catheter drainage bags will be covered at all times while in use . RI #144 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Disorder of Urinary System. Review of RI #144's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date of 09/18/2022, indicated RI #144 had 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 · D2022-12-22 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
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, interview, and review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed within three months of his/her prior assessment. This affected RI #2, one of 16 sampled residents for whom MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2019, revealed the following: .Chapter 2: Assessments for the RAI . 05. Quarterly Assessment . The Quarterly assessment is an OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) non-comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 92 days following the previous OBRA assessment of any type. It is used to track a resident's status between comprehensive assessments to ensure critical indicators of gradual…
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 · D2022-12-22 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 record review, interview, and review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #14 and RI #24's completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were transmitted to the CMS system. This affected RI #14 and RI #24, two of 16 sampled residents for whom MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2019, revealed the following: CHAPTER 5: SUBMISSION .OF THE MDS ASSESSMENTS Nursing homes are required to submit Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) required Minimum Data Set (MDS) records for all residents in Medicare- or Medicaid-certified beds regardless of the pay source . All Medicare and/or Medicaid-certified nursing homes . must transmit required MDS data records to CMS' Quality Improvement and Evaluation…
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 · D2022-12-22 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure: 1) Resident Identifier (RI) #3's diet orders were transcribed to the monthly Physician Orders; and 2) RI #144's catheter order was transcribed to the current Physician Orders following readmission to the facility with a catheter on 12/19/2022. This affected RI #3 and RI #144, two of 16 sampled residents for whom Physician Orders were reviewed. Findings include: 1) RI #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Gastrostomy Status (feeding tube). Review of RI #3's October 2022, November 2022, and December 2022 Physician Orders revealed orders for as needed tube feeding if oral intake was less than 50 percent; however, further review of these orders revealed there were no Diet Orders listed. Employee Identifier (EI) #4, the Assistant Director of Nursing, was interviewed on 12/21/2022 at 11:40 AM. EI #4 stated RI #3 was fed by mouth and assisted by staff. When asked where in the chart the resident's diet…
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 · D2022-12-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record reviews and a review of facility policies titled Hand Washing Policy/Procedure and a review of [NAME] and [NAME], Fundamentals of Nursing, NINTH EDITION the facility failed to ensure facility staff sanitized a blood pressure cuff and sanitized their hands in between Resident Identifier (RI) 15 and RI #26 on 12/20/2022. This affected RI #15 and RI #26 two of two residents observed during vital sign assessments and had the potential to affect 44 of 44 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of [NAME] and [NAME]'s Fundamentals of Nursing, NINTH EDITION, page 528, revealed the following: . Foundations for Nursing Practice . Measuring Blood Pressure---cont'd . 11. Perform hand hygiene. Wipe cuff with facility-approved cleaning agent if used between patients. A review of an undated facility policy titled Hand Washing Policy/Procedure revealed, Hand Washing Policy Staff and all employee working in the facility will follow proper hand washing practices in…
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 · Bcited before2022-12-22 · tag F0911 — patternEnsure resident rooms hold no more than 4 residents; for new construction after November 28, 2016, rooms hold no more than 2 residents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, an interview, and review of a facility assessment document for room occupancy, the facility failed to ensure that nine of sixteen resident rooms were not furnished and/or occupied by no more than four residents per room. This included Room Locator (RL) numbers (#): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. This affected 9 of 16 rooms in the facility. Findings Include: On 12/20/2022 beginning at 6:55 AM, during the initial tour of the facility, RL#s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were observed set up and furnished for the occupancy of five residents. There were no concerns noted related to access to the residents by staff for care. Adequate space for resident's belongings and equipment was provided. 12/22/2022 02:35 PM, EI #1, the Administrator, provided the surveyor with a list of rooms that occupy more than four residents. A review of the document indicated the individual square footage of each room. 12/22/2022 03:17 PM, EI #1 reported there were no concerns related to access of the residents by staff to provide care. EI #1 stated the facility had 58 certified beds with…
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 · Bcited before2019-12-14 · tag F0911 — patternEnsure resident rooms hold no more than 4 residents; for new construction after November 28, 2016, rooms hold no more than 2 residents.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure nine residents' rooms were not set up and furnished for the occupancy of five residents in each room. This deficient practice affected Room Locator (RL) #1 through RL #9, nine of 16 resident rooms in the facility. Findings include: On 12/10/2019 beginning at 11:20 AM, RL #1 through RL #9 were observed set up and furnished for the occupancy of five residents in each room. There were no concerns identified related to access to the residents by staff for provision of care, or the space for each residents' belongings and/or equipment. In an interview on 12/13/2019 at 9:56 AM, Employee Identifier (EI) #2, the Administrator was asked how many beds the facility is certified for. EI #2 replied, 58 beds. When asked what the current census was of the facility, EI #2 said 47. When asked how many rooms accommodated more than four residents, EI #2 answered, nine.
- No harm found · Bcited before2018-10-18 · tag F0911 — patternEnsure resident rooms hold no more than 4 residents; for new construction after November 28, 2016, rooms hold no more than 2 residents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, an interview, and review of a facility assessment document for room occupancy, the facility failed to ensure that nine of sixteen resident rooms were not furnished and occupied by no more than four residents per room. This included Room Locator (RL) numbers (#): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. This affected 41 of 53 residents residing in the facility. Findings Include: On 10/16/18 at 8:04 AM, during the initial tour of the facility, RL#s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were observed set up and furnished for the occupancy of five residents. There were no concerns noted related to access to the residents by staff for care. Adequate space for resident's belongings and equipment was provided. On 10/17/18 at 10:20 AM, EI #1, the Administrator, provided the surveyor with a list of rooms that occupy more than four residents. A review of the document indicated the individual square footage of each room and that each of the RL #s 1-9 were occupied by more than four residents. On 10/18/18 at 9:50 AM, EI #1 reported there were no concerns related to access of the residents…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in AL
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 01A193. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2022-12-22, 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.