W Frank Wells Nursing Home
210 N 2nd St, Macclenny, FL 32063 · Non profit - Corporation · 69 certified beds · (904) 259-6168 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2024
- inspectors cited 4 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $26,320 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-13)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 16.0% | 8.7% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.9% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.7% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 0.7% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.7% | 4.6% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.5% | 2.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.1% | 9.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.1% | 14.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 99.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.4% | 10.5% | 21.2% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.6% | 8.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 94.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.1% | 26.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 23.8% | 9.1% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.25 | 2.13 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.89 | 1.15 | 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.
54.6% 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 104 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.2% 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 42 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 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 72% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 54.6%CMS range 46.8–63.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.9%CMS range 10.2–20.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 45.2% | 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 | 57.1% | 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 | 42.9% | 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 | 48.6% | 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 | 71.7% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.7% | 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 | 8.3%CMS range 4.9–12.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 69 beds and averages 58.2 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 11 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 6.08 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.82 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.11 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 4.60 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.69 on weekdays — 31% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.03 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2024-06-13 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, resident, facility, and staff record reviews, the facility's policy Resident Elopement, the Facility Assessment, and the Administrator's job description, the facility administration failed to provide sufficient oversight, identify needed resources and ensure staff were sufficiently equipped to provide adequate supervision and implement relevant measures to prevent elopement (leaving the premises without supervision or staff knowledge) and minimize the risk of injury or death for Resident #1 and all seven of the other residents identified as at risk for elopement. The facility failed to have a systematic process in place to educate staff, identify environmental risks, revise plans of care, and develop, and implement relevant interventions to protect residents from exiting the facility without staff knowledge or supervision. The resident census was 57 on 6/12/24, eight of whom had been identified as at risk for elopement and fitted with a wander monitoring device. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Lcited before2024-06-13 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespreadSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, resident, facility, and staff record reviews, the facility's policy for Resident Elopement, the Facility Assessment, and a review of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program, the facility failed to have an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) process to monitor/audit facility practices involving resident elopements, assessment of elopements, staff education and competencies, and development of effective safety and preventative measures for Resident #1, who was identified as an elopement risk, as well as seven other residents identified as at risk for elopement. The QAPI committee failed to address 1) An incomplete facility investigation following Resident #1's elopement on 4/25/24, 2) All-staff training related to elopement and fire exit doors, 3) Staff participation in elopement drills, and 4) A wander monitoring system that only protected two of seven facility doors that opened to the outside. Instead, the committee…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-13 · 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 observations, staff interviews, resident, facility, and staff record reviews, and the facility's policy for Abuse Prevention/Reporting, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect. The facility failed to have a systematic process in place to protect Resident #1 and all residents identified as at risk, from harm or possible death. The facility failed to identify environmental risks, revise the plan of care, and develop and implement necessary and relevant interventions to protect vulnerable residents from exiting the facility without staff knowledge and supervision. This created a likelihood that Resident #1, or any other vulnerable at-risk resident, could leave the facility undetected and suffer serious physical harm. The facility census was 57 residents on 6/12/24; eight of whom had been identified as an elopement risk and fitted with a wander monitoring device. On 2/9/23, Resident #1 was admitted to the facility and was assessed as at risk for elopement. On 2/11/23, 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-13 · 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 observations, staff interviews, resident, facility, and staff record reviews, and the facility's policy for Resident Elopement, the facility failed to provide supervision and implement sufficient interventions to maintain resident safety, prevent elopement (leaving the premises without supervision or staff knowledge) and minimize the risk of injury or death for Resident #1 and all residents identified as at risk for elopement. The facility failed to have a systematic process in place to educate staff, identify environmental risks, revise plans of care, and develop, and implement relevant interventions to protect vulnerable residents from exiting the facility without staff knowledge and supervision. The resident census was 57 on 6/12/24, eight of whom had been identified as at risk for elopement and fitted with a wander monitoring device. Only two of the seven doors to the outside were equipped with wander monitoring device sensors. On 2/9/23, Resident #1 was admitted to the facility and was assessed 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.
- Potential for harm · F2024-12-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the kitchen food service observations, staff interviews, facility document review and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food handling practices to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness with the potential to affect all of the residents in the facility. The facility failed to ensure that the dietary staff used proper procedures for hand hygiene, disposable glove use, food storage and proper sanitation practices in the kitchen and for the two ice machines located in the main dining room and the restorative dining area. Safe food handling and good sanitation is important in health care settings serving nursing home residents due to the risk of serious complications from foodborne illness as a result of their compromised health status. Unsafe food handling practices represent a potential source of pathogen exposure. The findings include: During the initial tour of the facility kitchen on 12/02/24 at 9:22 AM an observation of the reach in freezer…
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 · F2024-12-05 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility document review, staff interview and facility policy and procedure review the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee composed of required members when the Medical Director failed to attend QAPI meetings on a monthly or quarterly basis from July 2024 through November 2024. The facility failed to provide evidence of communication of the program data to the Medical Director for his review and receive meaningful feedback from him on possible quality deficiencies and trends that might have required more frequent monitoring and may have resulted in negative health outcomes for the residents of the facility. The findings include: A review of the QAPI meeting minutes for the months of June 2024 through November 2024 revealed the facility QAPI committee met on 06/14/2024, 07/09/2024, 08/20/2024, 10/03/2024, 10/31/2024 and 11/06/2024. The meeting attendance was recorded and the Medical Director attended only the June meeting by phone (Copies obtained). During an interview on 12/04/2024 at 10:30 AM with the Administrator…
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 · E2024-12-05 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to address missing wall trim mid-wall, leaving sharp and splintered wood exposed in three (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]) of 16 rooms observed on the east hall, from a total of 36 rooms in the facility. Sharp and splintered wood in resident rooms could result in resident injury with pain and possible infection. The findings include: During room observations, starting on December 2, 2024, at 11:50 a.m., the following was observed: a. In room [ROOM NUMBER], Bed A was missing the wall trim above the bed, mid-wall. Bed B was missing wall-trim above the bed, with partial trim still in place and jagged edges exposed. (Photographic evidence obtained) b. In room [ROOM NUMBER], Bed A was missing the wall trim at the headboard of the bed. [NAME] beams from the base of the wall, running up mid-wall were still in place with unfinished wood exposed. Bed B was missing the wall trim, mid-wall above the bed. (Photographic evidence obtained) c. In room [ROOM NUMBER], Bed A was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-05 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to provide oxygen at the prescribed flow rate for one (Resident #7) of one resident reviewed for oxygen therapy from a total survey sample of 23 residents. The findings include: On 12/02/24 at 11:39 AM, the resident was observed with oxygen infusing at 1 Liter per minute via nasal cannula from the e-cylinder hanging on back of the resident's wheelchair. On 12/04/24 at 3:32 PM, the resident was observed with oxygen infusing at 1 Liter per minute via nasal cannula from the e-cylinder hanging on the back of the resident's wheelchair. (Photographic evidence obtained) A review of Resident #7's medical record revealed an admission date of 7/3/24 and diagnoses including, but not limited to, encephalopathy, dependence on supplemental oxygen, and generalized anxiety disorder. A review of the resident's active physician orders revealed the following: Oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula continuously (ordered 7/4/24) Change oxygen tubing and humidifier weekly (ordered…
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 · D2024-12-05 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
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, record review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to honor food preferences for one (Resident #2) of one resident reviewed for food preferences from a total survey sample of 23 residents. The findings include: On 12/02/24 at 10:07 AM, Resident #2 stated, I have already told them what foods I don't like and what foods I can't have because of my GERD but they still send it. On 12/04/24 at 8:54 AM, Resident #2 was observed in bed with her breakfast tray sitting on the bedside table. Registered Nurse (RN) I was observed administering the resident's medication. Another staff member entered the room to collect the resident's breakfast tray and was asked to remove the food tray cover so the percentage of food consumption could be observed. The surveyor and RN I observed bacon and sausage gravy (on top of an open biscuit) remaining on the plate. The tray card was reviewed with RN I and it indicated that the resident disliked .bacon, sausage . A review of 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 · F2023-01-26 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on a review of the facility's policy and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain documentation to demonstrate evidence of its ongoing Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. The findings include: During the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) review with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing, conducted on 1/26/23 at 11:30 a.m., there was no current documentation to demonstrate evidence that the facility had an active QAPI program. On 1/26/23 at 11:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing. Both confirmed they were unable to provide documentation of any recent ongoing QAPI initiatives. The facility provided a sheet that read 2018 QAPI Plan. (Copy provided) The facility had no specific policy related to maintaining documentation for their QAPI program. .
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-01-26 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespreadSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to effectively maintain a system to identify, collect and use data and information from all departments, including, but not limited to the facility assessment, adverse event monitoring, and feedback from direct care staff, including how such information would be used to develop and monitor performance indicators. The findings include: During the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement review with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing, conducted on 1/26/23, there was no evidence that the facility had any active Performance Improvement Projects. On 1/26/23 at 11:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing. They both confirmed that there was no evidence that the facility had any Performance Improvement Projects at the time of the survey. A review of the facility's policy titled QAPI Plan, with an effective date of 11/2017, read as follows: Page 1, #6, stated a program of operation with quality concerns will be described and the choosing of performance improvement…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-01-26 · 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain physician's orders and a diagnosis for a urinary catheter for one (Resident #12) of two residents sampled for a review of urinary catheters, from a total of 19 residents in the sample. The findings include: A review of the facility's Resident Matrix, printed on 1/23/23, revealed that Resident #12 had an indwelling urinary catheter. A record review was conducted for Resident #12, revealing an admission date of 10/26/22. The resident's diagnoses included cardiomyopathy, interstitial pulmonary disease, heart failure, hypertension, and atherosclerotic heart disease. A review of the resident's active Physician's Order Sheets for January 2023, revealed no diagnosis or physician's orders for a urinary catheter or catheter care. (Photographic evidence obtained) A review of the resident's care plan, dated 11/15/22, revealed that Resident #12 was admitted with an indwelling urinary catheter. He received extensive assistance to meet his toileting needs with interventions that included administration of medications as ordered;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-01-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control guidelines for urinary catheter bags for two (Residents #2 and #12) of seven residents with urinary catheters, from a total of 19 residents sampled. The findings include: 1. On 1/23/23 at 10:22 a.m., Resident #2 was observed self-propelling in his wheelchair down the hallway on the west wing near the nursing station. His urinary catheter bag was dragging on the floor under his wheelchair. (Photographic evidence obtained) On 1/23/23 at 1:46 p.m., during an interview with Resident #2 in his room, he stated his urinary catheter got in his way. At this time, the catheter bag observed to be connected to the underside of his wheelchair. The bag and tubing were touching the floor. Also, as the resident moved back and forth in his wheelchair, his catheter bag dragged on the floor. (Photographic evidence obtained) On 1/24/23 at 10:35 a.m., Resident #2 was observed in the hallway of the west wing, self-propelling toward the nursing station in his wheelchair. His urinary…
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
$26,320 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $26,320 — penalty dated 2024-06-13
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHILSON, JEFFREY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/31/2024 |
| VARNADOE, TIFFANY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/14/2021 |
| KENNEDY, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/13/2007 |
| RAULERSON, SHERRIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/13/2007 |
| WILSON, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/13/2007 |
| BAKER COUNTY MEDICAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/13/2007 |
| JACKSON, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/21/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
What families pay in FL
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 Florida 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 105210. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-01, 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.