Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility
415 Cook Springs, Pell City, AL 35125 · Non profit - Corporation · 168 certified beds · (205) 338-2221 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2019
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- its last standard health inspection was over 4 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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.0% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.8% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.2% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.2% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.4% | 1.4% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 3.7% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.5% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 36.5% | 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 | 4.3% | 5.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.5% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 26.5% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 2.0% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.7% | 80.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 34.5% | 24.8% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.6% | 11.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.80 | 1.96 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.26 | 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.
50.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 69 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 26.3% 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 38 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 0.17 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 8% 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 | 50.9%CMS range 38.2–61.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 8.0–15.2 | 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 | 26.3% | 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 | 36.8% | 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 | 34.2% | 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 | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 3.0% | 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 | 7.8%CMS range 4.8–13.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.68 | 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 168 beds and averages 132.3 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 36 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 3.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.50 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 3.18 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.93 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.62 to 0.26 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 4 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2019-07-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #50's medical record and RI #52's medical record, the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, the Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System and the facility's investigation files, the facility failed to ensure RI #50 and RI #52 were free from abuse perpetrated by a visitor of the facility, who is also the spouse of a resident residing in the facility. On 2/11/2019, without the consent of RI #50, the visitor came up behind RI #50 and placed his hands down the shirt of the resident, while the resident sat in the Dining room. RI #50 stated he/she was scared and shocked by the incident. Due to the facility not implementing interventions to protect and/or prevent further abuse from occurring, on 4/29/2019, without the consent of RI #52, the visitor kissed RI #52 on the forehead and ran his hand down the resident's clothing from the left breast to the resident's pubic area. RI #52 was hitting and screaming at 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2019-07-28 · 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 interviews, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #204's and RI #205's medical records, the Resident Incident Report, a typed statement and the hospital medical records, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address RI #204's use of a scoot chair and Dycem. On 3/21/2019, while sitting in the scoot chair at the nurses' station, RI #204 fell face forward onto the floor, hitting his/head. Employee Identifier (EI) #7, the Registered Nurse Supervisor who witnessed the fall, stated RI #204 slid from chair with cushion and Dycem still attached to resident's pants. The therapy staff indicated there should be two pieces of Dycem in RI #204's scoot chair. One piece of dycem was to be placed in the chair between the cushion and the chair. Then another piece of Dycem was to be placed on top of the cushion under the resident so the resident's bottom did not slide off the cushion and the cushion did not slide from the chair. EI #7 stated there was only one piece of Dycem and it was placed between the pad and RI…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2019-07-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #204's medical record, RI #205's medical record, the Resident Incident Report, a typed statement, the hospital medical records and the facility's policy titled Mechanical Lift, the facility failed to ensure the Dycem was correctly placed in RI #204's scoot chair. On 3/21/2019, while sitting in the scoot chair at the nurses' station, RI #204 fell face forward onto the floor, hitting his/head. Employee Identifier (EI) #7, the Registered Nurse Supervisor who witnessed the fall, stated RI #204 slid from chair with cushion and Dycem still attached to resident's pants. The therapy staff indicated there should be two pieces of Dycem in RI #204's scoot chair. One piece of dycem was to be placed in the chair between the cushion and the chair. Then another piece of Dycem was to be placed on top of the cushion under the resident so the resident's bottom did not slide off the cushion and the cushion did not slide from the chair. EI #7 stated there was only one piece…
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 · D2023-12-20 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, resident record review, and a facility policy titled Perineal Care (Incontinent Care), the facility failed to ensure a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4 provided perineal care for Resident Identifier (RI) #6 to correctly and thoroughly clean RI #6 during incontinent care on 12/19/2023. This had the potential to affect one of three sampled residents with urinary incontinence. Findings include: A facility policy titled Perineal Care (Incontinent Care) with an effective date of 6/20214 documented: PURPOSE: Good perineal care helps prevent infections, irritation, and skin breakdown. STANDARD: Residents who are incontinent of urine or feces should receive perineal care as needed. Residents should receive perineal care during routine baths or showers. PROCESS: 1. General . b) Remove any fecal matter or urine wiping with tissue from front to back. c) Pre-moistened disposable wipes or washcloth should be used. 2. a) Wash pubic area first, washing from front to back; use a different…
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 before2023-12-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of the training book How to Be a Nurse Assistant a Quality Approach to Long Term Care the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3, did not create the potential for cross-contamination during incontinent care for Resident Identifier (RI) #8 on 12/19/2023 when she was observed not washing or sanitizing her hands after doffing dirty gloves before touching the clean gloves and not washing hands after perineal care was completed. This had the potential to affect one of three residents who were observed for incontinent care. Findings include: The training book American Health Care Association's HOW TO BE A NURSE ASSISTANT A QUALITY APPROACH TO LONG TERM CARE, eighth edition by [NAME], RN, used by the facility for training purposes, documented on page 68: . Hand Hygiene . Before and after contact with a resident or their environment . Before putting on gloves . After removing gloves . RI #8 was admitted to the facility 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 · D2019-07-28 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation and Resident Identifier (RI) #61's and RI #141's medical record, the facility failed to timely report allegations of physical abuse to the State Agency involving RI #61 and RI #205 and RI #52 and RI #141. On 1/30/2019, RI #205 hit RI #61 in the face. The residents were immediately separated and no injuries were noted. The facility reported this allegation to the State Agency on 7/19/2019. On 5/3/2019, RI #141 hit RI #52 on the arm, twice before the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) could intervene.The facility reported this allegation to the State Agency on 7/10/2019. This affected two of five allegations of abuse reviewed the survey. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation with an effective date of 11/2016 documented . Process . V. Response and Reporting of Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (including injuries of unknown souce, and misappropriation of resident property) The following outlines steps to be taken during an investigation. These steps may…
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 before2019-07-28 · 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 Resident Identifier (RI) #117's medical record, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #11, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) washed her hands after handling RI #117's wet incontinence brief and before touching the resident's clean incontinence brief. This affected RI #117, one of three sampled residents observed for incontinence care. Findings include: RI #117 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #117's Significant Change in Status Assessment with an assessment reference date of 7/4/2019 indicated the resident was assessed as requiring extensive assistance with toileting and being frequently incontinence of bowel and bladder. During the provision of incontinence care on 7/11/2019 at 9:15 AM, EI #11, a CNA removed RI #117's wet incontinence brief. After EI #11 cleansed the resident, she went to the resident's closet and removed a clean incontinence brief. EI #11 did not wash her hands or remove her gloves before she touched RI #117's clean…
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 · F2018-08-16 · 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, interviews and a review of a facility policy titled ,Food, Leftover-Storage and Use and a document titled, Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1. eleven honey thickener waters were not in the cooler passed the use by date of 2/5/18; 2. a worker washed her hands after dropping a thermometer cover to the floor and before taking the temperature of a milk and; 3. plates were free of debris in the plate warmer. This was observed on one of three days of the survey and had the potential to affect 151 of 151 resident who received meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1) A review of a facility policy titled Food, Leftover-Storage and Use, with an effective date of 7/2016 revealed: PURPOSE: To assure that food borne illnesses are avoided .PROCESS 9. Opened bulk items that require refrigeration once opened may be stored up to thirty (30) days but not beyond the best by or expiration date then discarded. On 8/14/18 at 8:40 a.m., the surveyor toured cooler #2 with EI #9, Dining Service Manager. The surveyor observed eleven Ready Care Lemon Flavored water Honey…
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 · D2018-08-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the air conditioner temperature in Resident Identifier (RI) #37's room was not below 71 degrees. The temperature on the unit on 8/16/18 at 9:30 AM read at 69 degrees. Findings Include: RI #37 was admitted to the facility 10/14/16 with diagnoses of Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation and Other Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility. A review of RI #37's Quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 5/31/18 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 11, indicating minimal difficulty with cognitive status. RI #37 was also coded for extensive assistance with transfers. A review of a Daily Care Guide for RI #37 revealed: : .Interventions .8/15/2018 Resident representative has asked the room air conditioner unit to be set for 74 degrees as the resident allows. On 8/16/18 at 9:30 AM, the surveyor observed RI #37's daughter enter RI #37's room. RI #37 told the daughter it was cold. The daughter went to the unit opened the cover and the reading was at 69 degrees. The surveyor observed…
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 · D2018-08-16 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and review a facility policy Medication Administration Medication Administration Guidelines the facility failed to ensure licensed staff did not prepare Potassium liquid for Resident Identifier (RI) # 81 when the Keppra was due to be given. The facility further failed to ensure medication was not left at RI #81's bedside while the staff returned to the medication cart for a stethoscope. This was observed on 8/14/18 and affected one of seven nurses observed for medication administration. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy Medication Administration Medication Administration - General Guidelines with a date of 3/11 revealed: .Procedures . 16. Read medication label and compare with medication administration record before pouring. RI # 81 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Seizures. A review of RI #81's August 2018 Physician's Order revealed: .POTASSIUM CL (chloride) 10% .GIVE 7.5 ML (milliliters) . EVERY DAY .6 AM .LEVETIRACETAM (Keppra) .GIVE 10…
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 · D2018-08-16 · 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, interview and review of a facility policy : Medication Storage,the facility failed to ensure the secured medication box in the refrigerator on Hall I was locked. This was observed on 8/16/18 and affected one of two refrigerated secured medication storage boxes and had the potential to affect Resident Identifiers (RI) #2, 29, 56, 90, 113 and 136, six of six residents whose Lorazepam (Ativan) medication was stored in the refrigerated box. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy Medication Storage dated 3/11 revealed: .Procedures .7. Controlled medications are stored separately from other medications in a locked drawer or compartment designated for that purpose. On 8/16/18 at 10:15 AM, the medication room on Hall I was observed with Employee Identifier (EI) #8, Registered Nurse( RN). EI #8 opened the refrigerator and the surveyor asked her to remove the secured box. EI #8 replied the box did not come out. The surveyor asked if the secured box was locked. EI #8 replied, no. EI #8 was asked if the secured box should be locked. EI #8 replied, yes. EI #8 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-08-16 · 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, record review and review of facility policy Hand Washing (Infection Control) and Medication Administration the facility failed to ensure licensed staff: 1. did not carry a stethoscope used to check a gastrostomy tube placement with the same soiled gloves she had on to administer Resident Identifier (RI) #81's gastrostomy medication then return it to the medication cart, 2. washed her hands between gloves changes while performing wound care for RI #73; and 3. did not store packaged medication in a water cup in the medication cart then use the same cup for water to give to RI #138 the scheduled medication. These findings were observed on 8/14/18 and 8/15/18 and affected RI #81 one of one observed for Gastrostomy tube medication pass, RI #73 one of one observed for wound care, and RI #138 one of seven observed for medication pass observation. Findings Include: 1. A review of a facility policy titled, Medication Administration with a date of 3/11 revealed: . Procedures .3. The charge…
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 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 4.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 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 09/27/2013 |
| ESTEP, BARBARA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2024 |
| FLIPPO, GREGORY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/02/2009 |
| GOFF, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/10/2005 |
| HALL, MATTHEW | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/31/2022 |
| NELSON, DEBRA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/11/2017 |
| PICKELL, RANDOLPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/14/2021 |
| 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 09/27/2013 |
| WAGGONER, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/10/2017 |
| NOLAND HEALTH SERVICES, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2001 |
| BLACKWELL, CRYSTAL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/09/2025 |
| BUTERWORTH, BERONICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/02/2023 |
| KENWRIGHT, KAREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/27/2017 |
| 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 03/03/2019 |
| FLIPPO ENTERPRISES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2018 |
| NOLAND PHARMACY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2023 |
| NUTRITION PLUS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/13/2022 |
| WARREN AVERETT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 44 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.
About 70% 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 $381K 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 015195. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2022-05-05, 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.