Park Manor Health And Rehabilitation, LLC
2201 McFarland Boulevard, Northport, AL 35476 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 152 certified beds · (205) 339-5300 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)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 61% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 5 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 | 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 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 | 5.5% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.6% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.6% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.2% | 1.4% | 6.5% | better 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 | 1.2% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.9% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.8% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.4% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.8% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.4% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.9% | 80.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.5% | 24.8% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.2% | 11.3% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.53 | 1.96 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.45 | 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.
36.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 78 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 53.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 39 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 15% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 36.1%CMS range 25.5–47.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 7.1–14.1 | 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 | 53.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 48.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 33.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 6.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 3.5–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 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 152 beds and averages 143.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.89 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above 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 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.19 on weekdays — 25% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above the national median of 45%.
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 5 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2019-06-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, review of the 2017 Food Code regulations and the facility policies related to Leftover Food Storage and Foods from Families and Friends the facility failed to ensure: 1) Food was consistently labeled with open and use-by date (UBD) and used within seven days after opening; 2) Food below recommended temperatures on the 6/19/19 lunch tray line were reheated to at least 165 degrees Fahrenheit (F); and 3) Residents' refrigerators in three of three nursing station pantries were clean and residents' food was labeled with name and date, and discarded within three days as directed by facility policy. These failures had the potential to affect all 130 residents for whom meals were prepared and served at the time of this survey. Findings Included: 1) FOOD LABELING The facility policy: Leftover Food Storage and Use, with an effective date of 8/15/09, specifies the purpose, To assure that food borne illnesses are avoided. The processes by which this is achieved included: .b. Leftover foods…
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 · E2019-06-21 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — patternAdminister 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, review of pest control treatment logs, review of a facility policy titled Quality Assurance/Quality Assurance Performance Improvement, review of facility documents titled Quality Assurance Committee Action and Emergency Q.A.P.I. (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) Meeting Minutes and review of the Administrator's job description, Employee Identifier (EI) #1, the facility's administrator, failed to provide necessary oversight to ensure a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement plan was implemented after the identification of bed bugs on 5/09/19 in Resident Identifier (RI) #41 and RI #105's room, Room Locator (RL) #1, which resulted in the spread of bed bugs. This affected RI #s 41, 42, 46, and 105, four of 11 residents sampled for bed bugs. Bed bugs were identified in 6 of 81 total resident rooms in the facility, as well as in common areas, including the day room and dining room. Findings Include: Cross reference F867 and F925. Review of the job description, last reviewed 6/30/03, for EI #1, the Administrator, revealed: . General Purpose To direct the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-06-21 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — patternSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, review of pest control treatment logs, review of a facility policy titled Quality Assurance/Quality Assurance Performance Improvement, and review of facility documents titled Quality Assurance Committee Action and Emergency Q.A.P.I. (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) Meeting Minutes, the facility failed to ensure their QAPI plan was implemented to prevent the spread of bed bugs after they were identified on 5/09/19 in Resident Identifier (RI) #41 and RI #105's room, Room Locator (RL) #1. This affected RI #s 41, 42, 46, and 105, four of 11 residents sampled for bed bugs. Bed bugs were identified in 6 of 81 total resident rooms in the facility, as well as in common areas, including the day room and dining room. Findings Include: Cross reference F925. On 5/14/19 the State Agency received a complaint alleging the resident residing in RL #1 was ate up with bed bugs. The complainant alleged the facility was not treating for the bed bugs as they should have. On 6/07/19 the State Agency received a second complaint alleging the facility was infested with bed…
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 · E2019-06-21 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, review of a facility document titled Emergency Q.A.P.I. (Quality Assurance Process Improvement) Meeting Minutes, review of the facility's Quality Assurance Committee Action, review of the facility's pest control contract, and review of the facility's policies titled Bed Bugs and Insect and Rodent Control, the facility failed to ensure measures were implemented to provide effective pest control and prevent the spread to other rooms after the identification of bed bugs in Room Locator (RL) #1 on 5/9/19. Resident Identifier (RI) #s 41 and 105, who resided in RL #1, were taken to another room on Station 2 prior to receiving a shower on 5/9/19. Further, RI #s 46 and 42's clothing and other items were not removed from RL #5 after bed bugs were also discovered in that room. Further, RL #5 was not cleaned and vacuumed as outlined in the facility's Quality Assurance Committee Action and Bed Bugs policy. This affected RI #s 41, 42, 46, and 105, four of 11 residents sampled for bed bugs. Bed bugs were identified in 6 of 81 total resident rooms in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-21 · 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 observation and interview the facility failed to ensure the controlled box containing narcotics, in the Station 1 medication storage room, was permanently affixed to the inside of the refrigerator. This was observed on 6/20/19 at 10:30 AM during the medication storage observation and affected one of two medication storage rooms observed. Findings include: On 6/20/19 at 10:30 AM the surveyor and Employee Identifier (EI) #12, a Registered Nurse (RN)/Unit Manager, observed the medication storage room on Station 1. EI # 12 was asked if there was a secured box for controlled refrigerated medications. EI #12 replied, yes it is the locked box. EI # 12 was then asked if the locked box was permanently affixed to the refrigerator. EI #12 said the locked box was affixed to the shelf in the refrigerator. EI #12 was asked if the shelf was permanently affixed to the refrigerator, and EI #12 proceeded to pull on the shelf, removing the shelf along with the locked controlled medication box. On 6/20/19 at 10:40 AM, EI #12 was asked if the controlled medication lock box, in the Station 1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-06-21 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and review of a facility policy titled, Medication Administration Procedures, Eye Drops , the facility failed to ensure that a Licensed Nurse did not take multi-use items into a resident's room and place them on an unclean surface during medication administration of eye drops, then return and place items in the medication cart without first cleaning the items. This deficient practice affected Resident Identifier (RI) # 93, one of one resident observed receiving eye drops, and one of six total residents observed during medication administration observations. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration Procedures, Eye Drops, dated 03/11, revealed the following: . Procedures 1. Leave the . outside box on the medication cart. Only take the actual eye drops container into the resident's room. 2. Obtain a clean barrier and place on over-bed table . On 6/19/19 at 4:31 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) #11, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was observed administering medications to RI #93. EI #11 obtained sani cloths, a…
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 · D2019-06-21 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and review of a job description for the Director of Maintenance, the facility failed to ensure Room Locator (RL) #s 19-26 were free of chipped paint and splintered plywood on walls, broken chair rail moulding, scuffed and chipped paint on door facings, misaligned furniture drawers, soap dispenser off wall, broken toilet tissue holder, dangling TV cable and wheelchairs with tape on armrests. This was observed on three of four days of the survey and affected RL #s 19-26, eight of 81 rooms in the facility. Findings Include: A facility document titled, JOB DESCRIPTION . JOB TITLE: Director of Maintenance, with a review date of 6/30/03, documented: . B. DEPARTMENTAL FUNCTIONS . 9. Maintain appearance of building and provide necessary repairs and painting as needed. 23. Paint interiror/exterior surfaces. 26. Repair departmental equipment . On 6/18/19 at 8:51 a.m., the surveyor observed the dresser in RL #19 with the top 2 drawers misaligned, and the 4th drawer difficult to open. On 6/18/19 at 9:17 a.m., the surveyor observed RL #20 with the bathroom soap…
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 · Fcited before2018-07-19 · 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 and interviews the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff washed their hands after picking up an item from the floor and returning to their assigned task during lunch tray-line on 7/18/18, prevent dietary staff from entering the kitchen with a cloth apron on during the lunch tray-line on 7/18/18 and prevent the use of bowls with water in them . This had the potential to affect 119 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. On 07/18/18 at 11:45 AM EI#6, a dietary employee, was observed to drop a lid on the floor. EI# 6 picked the lid up off the floor with her gloved hands and placed the lid in dishwashing area. EI# 6 was observed to not remove her gloves, wash her hands or put on new clean gloves and she continued to adjust plates and touch items on resident lunch trays. On 07/18/18 at 2:58 PM an interview was conducted with EI# 6. EI# 6 was asked what she is to do if she drops an item on the floor during her duties in the kitchen? EI# 6 stated she should dispose of the item, take her gloves off, wash her hands and put on new gloves. When asked why that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2018-07-19 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews the facility failed to ensure: the grease receptacle was free of an accumulation of a grease like substance. This was observed two of three days of the survey. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen. On 07/17/18 at 8:58 AM and on 7/18/18 at 5:49 PM the grease bin located outside in the back of the kitchen was observed with a brown thick grease-like substance on the top of the bin behind the lid. On 7/18/18 at 5:49 PM an interview with EI # 7, the Dietary Manager, was conducted. EI# 7 was asked why the grease receptacle whould be free of an accumulation of a grease like substance on the outside of the receptacle. EI # 7 stated because flies and bugs could get stuck on it. anytime your contaminate your gloves Why should the grease bin be free of an accumulation of a grease like substance on the outside of the bin? A. Flies and bugs could get stuck up on it What is the potential harm of a staff member entering into the kitchen with an apron on and performing their assigned duties such as placing ice cream on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-07-19 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of a facility policy titled, Pre-admission Screening for Mental Retardation and Mental Illness, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a level II PASARR was completed for RI (Resident Identifier) # 118 transitioning from rehabilitation short term care to long term care. This affected one of 32 residents whose PASARRs were reviewed. RI #118's PASARR (Preadmission Screening for Mental Retardation and Mental Illness) Level I dated 11/07/17, documented the resident has a diagnosis of Schizophrenia and required a Level II screening. The Level II dated 11/20/17, documented the resident was receiving restorative nursing such as Physical Therapy five times a week for four weeks for gait training and therapeutic exercise for short term care. Section VII of the level II documented that if the status changed to long term and or rehab stopped a significant change Level I screening was required within 14 days. Another Level II should have been completed when the resident transitioned from short term care to long term care. On 07/18/18 at 4:23 PM the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-07-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and review of a facility policy Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to ensure: 1) licensed staff did not check tube placement without gloves for Resident Identifier (RI) #12 then without washing her hands return to the medication cart to prepare RI #12's medication; 2) a licensed staff did not drop a tablet on the medication cart then pick up the tablet with her bare hands and place it on the pill splitter. She further failed to wash her hands when leaving RI #26s room and returned to the medication cart. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy Hand Hygiene with an effective date of 9/1/17 revealed: PURPOSE: To provide guidelines to employees for proper and appropriate hand washing techniques that will aide in the prevention of transmission of infections. STANDARD: Hand washing should be performed between procedures with resident .based upon the principle that all blood, body fluids .may contain transmissible infectious agents III. Hand Hygiene .Upon and after coming 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NHS MANAGEMENT — 43 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 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NHS OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/08/2002 |
| JAMES NORMAN ESTES JR TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 11/08/2002 |
| JENNIFER LEE ESTES TR 031093 | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 11/08/2002 |
| ESTES, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 89% | since 11/08/2002 |
| PARK MANOR HEALTH REALTY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2003 |
| REGIONS BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 08/27/2012 |
| MURPHY, VICKIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/29/2023 |
| BOYD, CASEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/28/2023 |
| DUFFY, MARCIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/12/2003 |
| RASCO, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| LONG, PHILLIP | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
About 82% 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 $8.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 61% 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 015326. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2021-08-26, 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.