Robertsdale Rehabilitation & Healthcare Ctr
18700 U S Highway 90, Robertsdale, AL 36567 · For profit - Corporation · 152 certified beds · (251) 947-1911 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2024
- it has 4 actual-harm citations
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- about 20% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.8% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.8% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.9% | 2.4% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.9% | 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 | 2.9% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.5% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.1% | 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 | 8.1% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.9% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.3% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 2.0% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 80.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.4% | 24.8% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.5% | 11.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.53 | 1.96 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.09 | 1.70 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
61.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 219 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 51.6% 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 157 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 0.43 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 74% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 61.0%CMS range 56.0–66.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.2%CMS range 5.9–11.4 | 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 | 51.6% | 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 | 65.0% | 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 | 49.7% | 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 | 98.4% | 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 | 0.4% | 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 | 6.6% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 5.5–10.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.99 | 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 117.5 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 34 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 4.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.85 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 3.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.96 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2018-08-23 · 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) #25's medical record, the facility's investigation file and Employee Identifier (EI) #5's personnel file, EI #5, a CNA neglected to transfer RI #25 with a Hoyer lift and the assistance of another staff member on 5/17/2018. During the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift on 5/17/2018, EI #5 failed to follow RI #25's plan of care when she transferred the resident by herself by picking the resident up and pivoting the resident to the bed. No Hoyer lift was used and no assistance was provided by another staff member. During the transfer the resident's right knee was twisted and the resident began to complain of pain. One day later, on 5/18/2018, RI #25's right leg between the knee and ankle was noted to be red, warm, swollen and painful. RI #25 was transferred to the local hospital for further evaluation. An X-ray showed a comminuted mildly displaced proximal tibia fracture as well as a proximal fibular fracture. This deficient practice affected RI #25, one of four…
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.
- Actual harm · G2018-08-23 · 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) #25's medical record and the facility's investigation file, Employee Identifier (EI) #5, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) failed to follow RI #25's plan of care when she transferred the resident by herself by picking the resident up and pivoting the resident to the bed. RI #25 is care planned for two person assist with transfers with the Hoyer lift. During the transfer the resident's right knee was twisted and the resident began to complain of pain. One day later, on 5/18/2018, RI #25's right leg between the knee and ankle was noted to be red, warm, swollen and painful. RI #25 was transferred to the local hospital for further evaluation. An X-ray showed a comminuted mildly displaced proximal tibia fracture as well as a proximal fibular fracture. This deficient practice affected RI #25, one of 39 sampled residents. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Care Plans with a revised date of September 2009, documented PURPOSE: Plans of Care are…
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.
- Actual harm · G2018-08-23 · 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 interviews, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #25's medical record and the facility's investigation file, Employee Identifier (EI) #6, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) failed to assess RI #25 for a complaint of leg pain during the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift on 5/17/2018. During the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift on 5/17/2018, EI #5, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) failed to follow the resident's plan of care, when she transferred the resident to the bed. During the transfer the resident's right knee was twisted and the resident began to complain of pain. EI #6 administered an over-the-counter headache pain reliever, Excedrin, to the resident for the resident's complaint of pain; however, failed to assess the resident's complaint of leg pain. One day later, on 5/18/2018, RI #25's right leg between the knee and ankle was noted to be red, warm, swollen and painful. RI #25 was transferred to the local hospital for further evaluation. An X-ray showed a comminuted mildly displaced proximal tibia fracture as…
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.
- Actual harm · G2018-08-23 · 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, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #25's medical record and the facility's investigation file, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #5, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) used a Hoyer lift and the assistance of another staff person, as determined by RI #25's assessment and plan of care, during a transfer on 5/17/2018. During the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift on 5/17/2018, EI #5 failed to follow RI #25's plan of care when she transferred the resident by herself by picking the resident up and pivoting the resident to the bed. No Hoyer lift was used and no assistance was provided by another staff member. During the transfer the resident's right knee was twisted and the resident began to complain of pain. One day later, on 5/18/2018, RI #25's right leg between the knee and ankle was noted to be red, warm, swollen and painful. RI #25 was transferred to the local hospital for further evaluation. An X-ray showed a comminuted mildly displaced proximal tibia fracture as well as 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 · F2024-08-08 · tag F0623 — widespreadProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of hospital transfers in writing for three of three residents (Resident (R) 16, R38, and R93) out of a total sample of 35 residents reviewed for hospitalization. This had the potential for the residents to have no added protection if the residents were being inappropriately discharged or transferred so they could inform them of their rights and options. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Transfer and Discharge of a Resident (including AMA [against medical advice], revised 02/04, revealed no information regarding the facility's responsibility of notifying the Ombudsman of transfers and discharges. 1. Review of R16's undated Face Sheet provided by the facility revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a Departmental Note, provided by the facility and dated 07/24/24, revealed at 8:50 PM, R16's oxygen saturation (O2) was 60 percent (%). He was noted to be…
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 · Ecited before2024-08-08 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect 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 record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from abuse for seven of nine residents (Resident (R) 48, R83, R267, R15, R117, R76, and R80) reviewed for abuse. This failure had the potential to affect resident safety. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Administrative Policy, Subject: Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, last revised 11/17, revealed Each resident of any facility .has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical, or mental abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of his or her property. 1. a. Review of R12's undated ''admission Record,'' provided by the facility revealed R12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition, dementia without behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and major depressive. Review of R12's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment…
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 · E2024-08-08 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure four of six residents (Resident (R) 15, R83, R93, and R94) reviewed for pneumococcal vaccines out of total sample of 35 residents were either offered pneumococcal vaccines or offered additional pneumococcal vaccines per CDC guidelines. Additionally, the facility failed to obtain consents and provide the risks and benefits to the residents and/or responsible party (RP) prior to administering pneumococcal vaccines. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure R93 was offered an influenza vaccine. The failure of not offering/providing pneumococcal vaccines increased the risk for residents to contract pneumonia. The failure for not offering influenza vaccine increased the risk for the resident to contract influenza. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Influenza, Pneumococcal, COVID-19 and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccines…
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 · D2024-08-08 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one of two residents (Resident (R) 83) observed for dining out of 35 sample residents was positioned to ensure the resident could access their food without difficulty and at a comfortable position. This had the potential for the resident to have a decline in nutritional status and a negative dining experience. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Dining Services with the last revision date of 10/17, revealed Meal service is provided for all residents in a safe and sanitary environment and in a manner that preserves the dignity and respect of each resident .Every effort is made to provide a homelike environment in the dining room .During meal service: 3. b. Residents shall be positioned by nursing staff to enable the resident to consume food served in the safest, most efficient, and more comfortable manner possible. Review of R83's undated Face Sheet provided by the facility revealed 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 · D2024-08-08 · 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 observations, record review, interview, and job description review, the facility failed to ensure two of four residents (Residents (R) 5 and R 37) reviewed for activities of daily living received adequate assistance with shaving. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the quality of life and self esteem for the affected residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R5's undated Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab, indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including paraplegia, anxiety, urinary tract infection, abnormal posture, and history of stroke. Review of R5's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/31/24 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, indicated he had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 14 out of 15 which indicated the resident had intact cognition. R5 required extensive assistance by one staff member with personal hygiene. Review of R5's Care Plan, located 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure staff were providing appropriate and timely urinary catheter care for one of four residents (Resident (R) 5) reviewed for catheters and urinary tract infections of 35 sample residents. This failure placed the residents at risk for infection to the urinary tract and urethral trauma. Findings include: Review of R5's Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab, indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including paraplegia, anxiety, urinary tract infection, abnormal posture, and history of stroke. Review of R5's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/31/24 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed he had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 14 out of 15 which indicated the resident had intact cognition. R5 required extensive assistance by one staff member with personal hygiene. Review of R5's physicians orders,…
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 before2024-08-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure ceiling vents did not drip condensation onto the tray line and scoops were stored appropriately. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 100 of 113 residents who received meals prepared in the facility's kitchen. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Supplies and Equipment, dated 11/08, revealed Equipment will be ready for use at all times day or night to serve the resident's needs. Review of the facility's policy titled, STORAGE OF CANNED AND DRY FOOD, revised 11/23, revealed Dry lbod [food] products such as flour, commeal [cornmeal], sugar, etc [etcetera], that are stored in bins are removed from their original packaging. These bins are cleaned and sanitized according to facility cleaning schedule. Scoops are stored in covered containers and not in thc [the] storage bin unless hanging on a hook and out offood [of food] product. 1. The tray line was observed on 08/07/24 from 11:14 AM through 12:53 PM. Two ceiling vents above the steam table were observed to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-06 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and review of the facility's RECORD OF MEDICATION DISPOSAL forms, the facility failed to ensure the controlled drug destruction records had three required signatures. This was noted in 10/2018 and 5/2019, two of the six months of controlled drug destruction records reviewed. Findings Included: Review of the RECORD OF MEDICATION DISPOSAL forms, dated 10/16/18, revealed there were only two signatures present for the disposal of controlled medications. The section of the form for Signature of Witness (Only required for Controlled Drugs) was blank. Review of the RECORD OF MEDICATION DISPOSAL forms, dated 5/10/19, revealed there were only two signatures present for the disposal of controlled medications. The section of the form for Signature of Witness (Only required for Controlled Drugs) was blank. On 6/06/19 04:30 PM, the surveyor conducted an interview with Employee Identifier (EI) #1, Registered Nurse/Director of Nursing (DON). EI #1 was asked who was responsible for signing the controlled drug destruction sheets. EI #1 said the pharmacist, herself and the nurse…
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 · D2019-06-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, medical record review and review of [NAME] and [NAME] Fundamentals of Nursing Ninth Edition, Chapter 23 Legal Implications in Nursing Practice, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was accurately transcribed for Resident Identifier (RI) #175's bilateral lower extremity Doppler study. This affected RI #175, one of 27 sampled residents for whom medical records were reviewed. Findings Include: Review of [NAME] and [NAME] Fundamentals of Nursing Ninth Edition, Chapter 23 Legal Implications in Nursing Practice, copyright 2017, page 311, revealed the following: . Health Care Providers' Orders . Make sure that all health care provider orders are in writing . and transcribed correctly . RI #175 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #175 had diagnoses to include Cerebral Infarction, Surgical Aftercare following Surgery, and Hemiplegia. Review of Consultation Notes revealed RI #175 saw his/her oncologist on 4/3/19. This report documented the following: . PLAN . Biggest complaint…
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 before2018-08-23 · 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 observation, interview, review of facility's policy titled, FOOD STORAGE LABELING and the 2017 Food Code, the staff failed to ensure food was consistently covered and stored with labels to identify contents, date of preparation and use-by date. This had the potential to affect all residents for whom meals were prepared and served at the time of the survey. Findings include: The facility's FOOD STORAGE LABELING policy, revised October 2017, documented POLICY: The facility will ensure the safety and quality of food by following good storage and labeling procedures. PROCEDURE: 1. All food items must be labeled with the date they are received. 2. All food items that are not in their original containers must be labeled with the common name of the food and the date they are received. TCS (Time/Temperature Control for Safety) food held for longer than 24 hours must be labeled and date marked to indicate the use by date . 2. Suggested labeling includes: a. Common Name b. Date of preparation or Use By Date . The 2017 Food Code, documented . 3-202.15 Package Integrity. FOOD packages…
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 BALL HEALTHCARE SERVICES — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BALL, CLARENCE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 100% | since 10/22/1998 |
| SKELTON, FREDERICK | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/20/2022 |
| HALL, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/01/2014 |
| BALL HEALTHCARE SERVICE, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/22/1998 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 20% 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 015443. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-08, 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.