Troy Health & Rehabilitation Center
515 Elba Highway, Troy, AL 36079 · For profit - Corporation · 220 certified beds · (334) 566-0880 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- its 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 (1/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 | 10.8% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.7% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.6% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.9% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.3% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.3% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.3% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.1% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.3% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.0% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.6% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 33.8% | 80.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.0% | 24.8% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.2% | 11.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.74 | 1.96 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 4.10 | 1.70 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
44.2% 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 48 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.0% 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 25 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 44.2%CMS range 32.7–56.4 | 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 | 10.3%CMS range 6.6–16.8 | 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 | 52.0% | 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 | 40.0% | 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 | 48.0% | 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 | 54.8% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 | 9.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.3%CMS range 3.2–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 220 beds and averages 130.4 residents a day — about 59% occupied, or roughly 90 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.23 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.89 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.06 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2022-10-20 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, document review, and the Rules of the Alabama State Board of Health, Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), Chapter 420-5-10, Nursing Facilities, original rules effective 8/23/1996 and last amendments effective 7/30/2016, the facility failed to ensure the full time Dietary Manager, Employee Identifier (EI) #1, met the definition of a Dietary Manager per the rules of the State of Alabama. This had the potential to affect 103 of 103 residents receiving meals from the facility kitchen. Findings Include: The Rules of the Alabama State Board of Health, ADPH, Chapter 420-5-10, Nursing Facilities, original rules effective 8/23/1996 and last amendments effective 7/30/2016 included the following: . 420-5-10-.01 Definitions. (1) Definitions - (a list of selected terms often used in connection with these rules): . (b) These Rules - Rules 420-5-10-.01 through 420-5-10-.11, Chapter 420-5-10, Nursing Facilities, Alabama Administrative Code. (l) Director of Food Services/Dietary Manager - . who is a full-time employee, and if not a qualified dietitian, is one who: (1) is 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 · Fcited before2022-10-20 · 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, and the 2017 Food Code of the United States (U.S.) Public Health Service and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the facility failed to: 1.) prevent the potential for cross-contamination from a) dishwashing machine and scrap sink drainpipes extending into the floor drain, thereby creating the possibility for backflow, b) the ceiling of the Walk-in Cooler having an accumulation of dust, c) a plastic mug buried in the flour bin, and; 2.) prevent the potential from contamination from vermin or insects by a) a sugar bin not securely covered, and b) providing potential harbor in the Chemical Storeroom by placing containers directly on the floor so that half of the small floor area could not be easily swept or mopped; 3.) prevent the potential for physical contamination from light tubes in a ceiling light fixture without a cover; 4.) maintain kitchen equipment in good repair as evidenced by a) a preparation table with folded damp cardboard under two legs to level it and 5.) prevent expired milk possibly being served to residents. This had 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 · F2022-10-20 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and the 2017 Food Code of the United States (U.S.) Public Health Service and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the facility failed to ensure two of three dumpsters were not open and one of one oil refuse container was not covered in a thick layer of oil/grease, which could attract vermin. This had the potential to affect 108 of 108 residents in the facility. Findings Include: The 2017 Food Code of the U.S. Public Health Service and FDA included the following: . 5-501.15 Outside Receptacles. (A) Receptacles and waste handling units for REFUSE . used with materials containing FOOD residue and used outside the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT shall be designed and constructed to have tight-fitting lids, doors, or covers. (B) Receptacles and waste handling units for REFUSE . shall be installed so that accumulation of debris and insect and rodent attraction and harborage are minimized and effective cleaning is facilitated . 5-501.111 Areas, Enclosures, and Receptacles, Good Repair. . receptacles for REFUSE . shall be maintained in good repair. 5-501.113 Covering…
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 before2022-10-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record reviews and a review of facility policies titled Hand Hygiene Table, Hand Hygiene and LAUNDRY PROCESS, the facility failed to ensure: 1) Facility staff did not go room to room when picking up resident trays wearing the same gloves on 10/19/22; and 2) Linens were stored in a sanitary manner. This affected Resident Identifier (RI) #52 one of one residents observed during meals, and laundry had the potential to affect 108 of 108 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. RI #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. A review of an undated facility policy titled Hand Hygiene revealed, . 2. Hand hygiene is indicated and will be performed under the conditions listed in, but not limited to, the attached hand hygiene table. A review of an undated facility policy titled Hand Hygiene Table, revealed . Between resident contacts . After handling contaminated objects . 1) On 10/19/22 at 5:25 PM an observation was made of Employee Identifier (EI)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews and review of a facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity During Mealtimes, the facility failed to ensure Resident identifier (RI) #92 received their meal at the same time as their roommate, RI #76 and the facility further failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #9, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not stand while feeding RI #92. This affected one of 24 sampled residents. Findings Include: The facility policy titled Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity During Mealtimes with no effective date documented: . 1. All staff members involved in providing feeding assistance to residents promote and maintain resident dignity during mealtimes. 5. All staff will be seated, if possible, while feeding a resident. RI #92 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. On 10/18/2022 at 12:25 PM, RI #76 was observed feeding self the lunch meal in the bed and RI #92 was observed without a meal. On 10/18/2022 at 12:29, RI #92 was asked if it bothered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and review of a facility policy titled B. Destruction of Medications, the facility failed to ensure the Non-Controlled Medication Destruction Sheets contained the two required signatures. This affected two of 12 months ([DATE] and [DATE]) of Non-Controlled Medication Destruction Sheets reviewed. Finding include: An undated facility policy titled B. Destruction of Medications, revealed the following: Policy: Expired, unusable, and discontinued medications must be destroyed in compliance with all state/federal laws and regulations. The facility is responsible for maintaining accurate records and appropriate witness signatures of destroyed medications. Procedure: . Non-controlled medication destruction must take place in the presence of two licensed nurses or one licensed nurse and a pharmacist. On [DATE] at 2:02 PM, the surveyor reviewed the Non-Controlled Medication Destruction Sheets for 10/2021, 11/2021, 12/2021, 01/2022, 02/2022, 03/2022, 04/2022, 05/2022, 06/2022, 07/2022,…
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 before2019-10-24 · 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 facility's policies titled, Cleaning Dishes/Dish Machine and Buffet Style Dining, the facility failed to ensure: 1. utensils in bags were free of water and food like substance at the tray line; 2. plates were free of spots and 3. staff did not add old food to new food at the tray line. This had the potential to affect 142 of 142 residents who received meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1) A review of a facility policy titled, Cleaning Dishes/Dish Machine, with the year date 2013, revealed: Policy: All flatware, serving dishes, and cookware will be washed, rinsed, and sanitized after each use.Procedure: .11. Flatware should be pre-soaked prior to washing.Staff should assure that silverware is not nested prior to washing in cylinders. On 10/22/19 at 9:46 a.m., at the tray line the surveyor observed wet nesting of spoons, forks and knives in ready to go bags (plastic bags, seven) on a tray to be placed on the residents trays. The surveyor also observed most of all the bags with silverware in them were wet on the tray. There were…
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 before2019-10-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews and review of a facility document titled Perineal Care, the facility failed to ensure: 1. a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not place the wipes used for incontinent care for Resident Identifier (RI) #84 on the resident's bed, 2. the same CNA did not cover the clean wipes with the resident's bed covers, and 3. the CNA did not place the soiled wipe container on the inside of a clean brief before placing it on RI #84. This was observed on 10/23/19 and affected one of two residents observed for incontinent care. Findings Include: A review of an undated facility document titled Perineal Care revealed Purpose The purposes of this procedure are to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, . Steps in the Procedure 1. Place the equipment on the bedside stand. Arrange the supplies so they can be easily reached. RI #84 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included Anxiety Disorder and Dementia without…
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 before2018-10-25 · 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 and review of facility policy Food Storage and the Food Drug Administration (FDA) 2017 Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1. an open bag of corn nuggets and an open bag of pork riblets were not in the freezer without a label and use by date; 2. a pork roast in a large zip lock freezer bag was not in the freezer with a use by date of 9/14/18, a bag of pork patties in the freezer with a use by date of 10/2/18 and a half gallon container of peaches was not in the refrigerator with a use by date of 10/20/18; 3. 2 bags of hot dog buns were sealed, 1 pack contained 6 buns, while the other contained 5 buns; 4. a metal pan in the refrigerator containing super pudding was labeled and dated, and 5. a dietary/cook's hair was completely contained in a hair net. This was observed on 10/22/18 and 10/23/18 and had the potential to effect 146 of 146 residents receiving meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Food Storage, date 2013, revealed: Policy: .Food is stored, .by methods designed to prevent contamination…
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 · D2018-10-25 · 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 observation, interview, record review and review of a facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to ensure a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) washed her hands between glove changes and did not use gloves she removed from her uniform pocket while performing incontinent care for Resident Identifier (RI) #126, a resident with a history of Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). This was observed on 10/23/18 and affected one of one residents observed for incontinent care. Findings Include: A review of an undated facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revealed . Policy Statement This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections.5. Employees must perform hand hygiene under the following conditions: . u. After removing gloves . 6. In most situations, the preferred method of hand hygiene is with alcohol-based hand rub. If hands are not visibly soiled, . for . the following situations: . b. Before donning sterile gloves; . 8. The use of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARX, V. | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | 90% | since 11/01/2003 |
| KELLY, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | 5% | since 07/20/2003 |
| MARX IV, VICTOR | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | 5% | since 10/20/2019 |
| WALDEN, OVIDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 $250K 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 015213. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2022-10-20, 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.