Southwell Health And Rehabilitation

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

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.

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.

66.2% 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 241 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 58.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 127 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 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 95 beds and averages 84.3 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.21 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.34 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 3.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.75 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.44 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% 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.

17 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Wound Care Coordinator (WCC) followed infection control processes during wound care and supra-pubic catheter care for one of five residents (R) (R6) reviewed and observed for wound care and catheter care. This deficient practice had the potential to place R6 at risk of infection due to cross-contamination.Findings include:Review of R6's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed diagnoses including, but not limited to, quadriplegia, open wound of lower back and pelvis, pressure ulcer sacral region stage 4, and bed confinement status.Review of R6's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) documented that the resident was dependent for care. Section H (Bladder and Bowel) documented that the resident had an indwelling catheter. Section M (Skin Conditions) documented one unhealed stage 4 pressure ulcer, use of a pressure-reducing device for bed, 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2024-09-13 · tag F0847 — widespread
  Inform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
  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 staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's arbitration agreement, the facility failed to ensure three of three Residents (R) (R25, R80, R44) reviewed for arbitration agreements had agreements in place that provided the resident/responsible party a period of 30 days to rescind the agreement after it was signed. The facility's arbitration agreement provided a period of 10 days to rescind the agreement which had the potential to affect all residents of the facility. In addition, R80 and R44 had not been educated regarding the arbitration agreements and were not aware the arbitration agreements had been signed by their family members. Findings include: Review of the facility's Conditions of Service and Consent for Treatment located within the admission Agreement included a section titled Agreement to Alternative Dispute Resolution, which was the facility's arbitration agreement. The document read, Patient agrees that any claim or dispute arising out of or related to 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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2024-09-13 · tag F0848 — widespread
  Provide a neutral and fair arbitration process and agree to arbitrator and venue.
  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 staff interview, record review, and review of the facility's arbitration agreement, the facility failed to ensure three of three Residents (R25, R80, R44) reviewed for arbitration had arbitration agreements in place that allowed for a mutually agreed upon arbitrator and venue for arbitration. The facility's arbitration agreement delineated the specific arbitrator that would be used. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's Conditions of Service and Consent for Treatment located within the admission Agreement included a section titled Agreement to Alternative Dispute Resolution, which was the facility's arbitration agreement. The document read, The arbitration of any claim or dispute hereunder shall be administered by [name of organization] in Tifton, Georgia . 1.Review of the untitled, undated admission record provided by the facility revealed R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R25's Agreement 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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-13 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  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 resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, System Policy and Procedures Advance Directives, the facility failed to ensure they had a copy or had followed up to obtain the Advanced Directive for one out of 24 residents reviewed in the initial pool (Resident (R) R80). R80's Family Member (F)80 indicated, at the time of admission, that they had R80's advanced directive documentation; however, did not bring it into the facility at the time of admission. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, System Policy and Procedures Advance Directives dated August 2021 revealed, If a patient has an Advance Directive, but does not present the document upon admission, Facility personnel encourage the patient, or his or her representative, to provide a copy as soon as possible .In addition, the Facility personnel member includes a reminder in the patient's medical record which indicates that the patient should be further queried as to whether he/she wishes 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect 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, record review and review of the facility's policy titled, Compliance Investigations, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by another resident for one of two residents (R) (R22) reviewed for abuse. Specifically, R22 alleged she was slapped hard on the hand by Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 and the allegation was substantiated by the facility, resulting in CNA 1's termination of employment. Findings include: The facility's Abuse Prevention Policies were requested on 9/13/2024. The facility provided a system wide policy titled Compliance Investigations dated 1/1/2020 addressed the provider system's investigations into potential compliance concerns. The policy did not address expectations related to prevention of abuse in neglect in the long-term care setting. Record review of R22's admission Record. dated 9/12/2024 provided by the facility indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-13 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
  Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure policies were in place to comprehensively address abuse prevention and investigation in the healthcare system's long-term care facility. The healthcare system's policies and procedures utilized to direct the facility's prevention and investigation of abuse did not specifically incorporate elements of the long-term care regulation set related to abuse/neglect. Findings include: The facility's Abuse Prevention Policies were requested on 9/13/2024. The facility provided a system wide policy titled, Compliance Investigations dated 1/1/2020 and addressed the provider system's reporting of potential compliance concerns. The policy did not address expectations related to prevention of abuse and neglect in the long-term care setting, such as the mandatory vetting of staff members prior to hire or the recognition of abuse, nor did it address the specific long-term care requirements related to the investigation of allegations of potential abuse. Interview with the Heath System's Compliance and Accreditation…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-13 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  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 staff interviews, record review, review of the facility's abuse policies, and review of the facility's policy titled, Compliance Investigations, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse by one resident (R) (R22) of two residents reviewed for abuse was thoroughly investigated. R22 alleged she was slapped hard on the hand by a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 1 and the investigation into the allegation did not include interviews with additional residents or staff members to ensure no other residents had been exposed to potential abuse by CNA 1. Findings include: The facility's Abuse Prevention Policies were requested on 9/13/2024. The facility provided a system wide policy titled, Compliance Investigations. The policy was dated 1/1/2020 and addressed the provider system's investigations into potential compliance concerns. The policy did not address expectations related to the investigation of allegation of potential abuse. Review of R22's admission Record. dated 9/12/2024 provided by the facility…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-13 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, System Policy and Procedures Behavioral Health, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (R) (R36) who was reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) services was referred to the state-designated authority for Level II PASARR after a new mental illness diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder was added during her stay. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, System Policy and Procedures Behavioral Health dated 1/30/2023 and provided by the facility revealed, [Facility name] staff reviews admission orders, history and physical, consultation report, as well as Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) recommendations for diagnosis of mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty. When diagnosis is indicated, appropriate services and treatment are provided. Review of the untitled, undated admission record provided by the facility revealed R36 was admitted to 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop 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 observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for three residents (R) (R35, R71 and R25) of 21 sampled residents. Specifically, the failure created the potential for R25 to have inadequate care for an indwelling urinary catheter, and R35 and R71 to have inadequate care for edema in their lower extremities. Findings include: 1. Review of R35's undated Face Sheet provided by the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed R35 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of combined systolic and diastolic heart failure and vascular dementia. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/12/2024 located under the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) tab revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven out of 15 which indicated R35 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of R35's Physician Orders, provided by the DON, revealed an order dated 4/24/2024 for Above the knee Grad Compression Stocking.…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-13 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide 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, staff and resident interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident (R) (R25) reviewed for indwelling urinary received appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI). Specifically, there was no physician orders for the size of the indwelling urinary catheter and how often to change it and R25's catheter and/or tubing were observed resting on the floor for three out of four days of the survey. These failures created the potential for R25's catheter to become dislodged and for R25 to get a UTI. The sample size was 31 residents. Findings include: Review of the undated Face Sheet provided by the facility revealed R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R25's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/26/2024 and provided by the facility revealed R25 was moderately impaired in cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15. During an interview on 9/12/2024 at…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 6 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 GA