Heritage Inn Of Barnesville Health And Rehab
946 Veterans Parkway, Barnesville, GA 30204 · Non profit - Other · 117 certified beds · (770) 358-2485 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
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 |
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 3 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 | 16.9% | 15.3% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.1% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.2% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.7% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.1% | 11.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 9.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.3% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.8% | 20.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.1% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 5.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.9% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 25.5% | 19.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 25.7% | 78.4% | 79.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.90 | 2.15 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.94 | 1.90 | 1.80 | typical |
§ 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.
34.6% 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 26 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.11 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 6% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | 34.6%CMS range 20.7–53.0 | 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 | 11.1%CMS range 7.2–17.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 117 beds and averages 110.2 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 7 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.14 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.20 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 2.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.06 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.16 to 0.09 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-04-10 · 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, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled Skilled Nursing Services: Cleaning and Sanitizing, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen workplace and equipment were clean and sanitized to reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses. This deficient practice had the potential to place the residents who received an oral diet from the kitchen at risk of foodborne illness. Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Skilled Nursing Services: Cleaning and Sanitizing, dated 12/27/2024, revealed the Intent section included, It is the intent of this center to clean and sanitize utensils, dishware, pots and pans, workspace, and equipment to minimize the risk of food-borne illnesses. The Guideline section included, . Work surfaces and equipment should be cleaned and sanitized as needed. Fixed equipment: Items should be cleaned and sanitized appropriately. Removable parts may be cleaned and sanitized separately. Items should air dry as needed. Stationary equipment should be covered when fully cleaned and sanitized. Observation on 4/9/2025 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-10 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration-General, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent. There were two errors with 26 opportunities for two of five residents (R) (R33 and R28) observed for a medication error rate of 7.69 percent. This deficient practice had the potential to place R33 and R28 at risk of avoidable medical complications due to not receiving medications as prescribed by the physician. Findings Include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Medication Administration- General, revealed the Intent section stated, To facilitate that medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good nursing principles. 1. Review of R33's Consolidated Orders revealed diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Observation on 4/9/2025 at 8:15 am revealed Certified Medication Assistant (CMA) AA administering morning medications to R33. The medications included citalopram 20 milligrams (mg)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-15 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and a review of the facility policies titled Change in a Patient's Condition, and Fall Management, the facility failed to notify the physician and family of a change in condition for three residents (R) (R1, R3, and R9) of 11 sampled residents reviewed for notification of a change in condition. Specifically, when R1 refused dialysis treatment, and when R3 and R9 sustained falls. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Change in a Patient's Condition, with a review date of 12/30/2022, indicated the Intent section stated: It is the intent of this center to notify the patient, his/her attending physician, and responsible party/patient representative of changes in the patient's condition and/or status. The Guideline section stated: Nursing services is responsible for notifying the patient's attending physician when: Deemed necessary or appropriate in the best interest of the patient. Nursing services is responsible for notifying the patient, his/her next-of-kin, or…
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 · D2024-02-15 · 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 resident and family interviews, staff interviews, record review, and review of the policies titled Abuse Prohibition, and A Comprehensive Patients' Rights Program, the facility failed to protect two residents' (R) (R3 and R10) right to be free from verbal abuse and neglect by staff. Specifically, the facility failed to protect R10's right to be free from verbal abuse when she asked for assistance with removing her clothes and staff called the resident lazy and failed to protect R3's right to be free from neglect when he requested staff to assist him to the bathroom and the staff refused. As a result of R3 attempting to go to the bathroom by himself, he fell and sustained an injury to the head. The sample size was 11 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition, with a review date of 12/30/2022, revealed the section titled Intent stated: It is the intent of this center to actively preserve each patient's right to be free from mistreatment, neglect, abuse, or…
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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain medical records accurately on six out of eleven resident (R) records reviewed (R3, R6, R7, R8, R9, R11). Findings include: 1. Review of R3's Electronic Health Record (EMR) Face Sheet revealed a discharge date of 3/24/2023. Review of the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) discharge assessment revealed a date of 3/20/2023. Further review of R3 EMR Nurses Note dated 3/20/2023 revealed the resident was sent to the hospital. There was no documentation that R3 returned to the facility. 2. Review of R6's EMR Face Sheet revealed a discharge date of 2/23/2023. Review of the resident's MDS discharge assessment revealed a date of 2/23/2023. Further review of R6 EMR Nurses Note dated 2/22/2023 revealed the resident was sent to the hospital. There was no documentation that R6 returned to the facility. 3. Review of R7's EMR Face Sheet revealed a discharge date of 6/29/2023. Review of the resident's MDS death in the facility assessment revealed a date of 6/28/2023. Further review of R7's EMR Nurses Note dated 6/28/2023 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-02-23 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident representative (RR) interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Skilled Inpatient Services, Pain Assessment, the facility failed to notify the physician of a resident's pain for one of two residents (R) (R#283) reviewed for pain management. Specifically, the pain reliever for R#283 was not working, they experienced frequent pain, and the physician was not notified. This failure had the potential to delay or prevent treatment for R#283. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Skilled Inpatient Services, Pain Assessment, dated 12/04/2021, revealed there was no information in the policy regarding notifying the physician about a resident's uncontrolled pain. A review of the Face Sheet for R#283 indicated diagnoses that included sepsis following a procedure, muscle weakness (generalized), pain in left leg, pain in left knee, effusion in left knee, need for assistance with personal care, dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood…
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 · D2023-02-23 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF ABN) for one of three residents (R) (R#24) who were being discharged from Medicare Part A services. Specifically, the facility failed to provide a SNF ABN for R#24 when they were discharged from therapy services and remained in the facility. Findings include: A copy of the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and SNF ABN notifications were requested from the Administrator on 2/20/2023 for three residents who were required to have notifications. No SNF ABN notification was located for R#24. A review of the Face Sheet for R#24 revealed diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, compression fracture of lumbar vertebrae, polyneuropathy, and unsteadiness on feet. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the assessment was a 5-day Prospective Payment System (PPS) scheduled assessment for a Medicare Part A stay. The MDS indicated R#24…
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 · D2023-02-23 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop 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 record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibition, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy related to reporting and investigating an allegation of abuse and protecting the resident during the investigation for one of four residents (R) (R#24) reviewed with allegations of abuse. Specifically, these failures created the potential for continued abuse toward R#24 and other facility residents. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibition dated 2020, indicated in the section titled, Investigation and Follow Up, the policy indicated, After an allegation/incident has been reported to the state, incident should be investigated including but not limited to the following: Description of the event to include any identified injuries. Additional excerpts from this section of the policy included, Interviews will be conducted of pertinent parties. Written statements from any involved parties will be obtained if possible or a witnessed, signed interview would be an appropriate alternative.…
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 · D2023-02-23 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, resident and staff interview, and review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibition, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the Administrator and to other appropriate agencies for one of four residents (R) (R#24) with allegations of abuse reviewed. Findings include: A review of the facility's Abuse Prohibition policy, dated 2020, indicated in the section titled, Reporting that It will be the responsibility of any department leader receiving the complaint of alleged abuse, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, neglect, mistreatment of patient property, or exploitation should inform the Administrator or designee immediately. All allegations of abuse or allegations involving serious bodily injury must be reported immediately but no later than 2 hours. Allegations that do not involve abuse or allegations with serious bodily injury must be reported immediately but no later than 24 hours. The policy also indicated, The administrator or designee will notify the Complaint Investigation Intake and Referral Unit and the legal representative…
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 · D2023-02-23 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond 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 record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibition, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse and to protect the resident during the investigation for one of four residents (R) (R#24) reviewed for allegations of abuse. Findings included: A review of the facility's Abuse Prohibition policy, dated 2020, indicated the following in the section titled, Investigation and Follow Up: After an allegation/incident has been reported to the state, incident should be investigated including but not limited to the following: Description of the event to include any identified injuries. Physical assessment of the patient may be required based on the nature of the allegation. Additional excerpts from this section of the policy included, Interviews will be conducted of pertinent parties. Written statements from any involved parties will be obtained if possible or a witnessed, signed interview would be an appropriate alternative. Information…
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 · D2023-02-23 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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, record review, and a review of the facility's policy titled, Skilled Inpatient Services, Pain Assessment, the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided for 1 of 2 residents (R) (#283) reviewed for pain management. Observations revealed that R#283 experienced pain during a procedure and during care and the facility staff failed to assess the pain and provide pain management. Findings included: A review of a facility policy titled, Skilled Inpatient Services, Pain Assessment, dated 12/04/2021, specified, Upon admission, patients will be evaluated for pain utilizing the Pain Risk Assessment. Patients should be evaluated for pain, using the Pain Risk Assessment, quarterly, annually, and with a significant change of condition such as illness, decline in function or change in mood or cognition. Observation for the recognition of pain using the 0-10 pain scale should be completed every 8 hours and before and after the administration of PRN [as needed] analgesic…
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 · D2021-09-03 · 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, record review, facility policy review titled Hand Hygiene-Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guidelines, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that catheter care was performed in a way to prevent cross-contamination by changing gloves when going from dirty to clean for one resident (R) (R#44), who has a history of urinary tract infections (UTI), from a total sample of 32 residents. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Hand Hygiene-CDC Guidelines dated 1/12/18 revealed that staff are to change gloves when moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site on the same patient. R#44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. During observation of catheter care with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) AA and CNA BB, on 9/2/21 at 9:15 a.m., CNA AA laid out all necessary supplies (one pair of purple gloves, package of wipes, clean diaper, and plastic bag) on a covered…
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.
- No harm found · B2024-02-15 · tag F0637 — patternAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 and record review the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, within fourteen days of the significant change, for one resident (R) (R11), who was discharged from hospice service, out of 11 resident records reviewed. Findings included: Review of R11's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 3/22/2022 with diagnoses of, but not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies disease, and Parkinson's disease. Review of R11's MDS significant change assessment dated [DATE] revealed Section documented the resident was assessed as receiving hospice services while a resident at the facility. Review of the physician orders dated 5/27/2022 revealed an order to admit to hospice services. Review of the physician order dated 1/26/2023 revealed an order to discharge from hospice services. Record review revealed a quarterly MDS assessment was completed on 1/30/2023. In an interview 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.
- No harm found · B2024-02-15 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately reflect the fall status on the Minimum Data Sets (MDS) assessments for two residents (R) (R9 and R11) out of seven resident records reviewed for falls. Findings include: 1. Review of R9's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 3/5/2021 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder and bilateral primary osteoarthritis of the hip. Record review revealed the MDS quarterly assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was not conducted and that the resident rarely/never understood. Section J (Health Conditions) revealed the resident was assessed as having no falls. Review of R9's Event-Initial Note dated 2/3/2023 revealed: Resident noted to be sitting on the floor leaning to her right side with her head lying against the wheelchair. The resident was assessed with noted redness to her right shoulder, but no pain noted upon assessment. Interventions…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ETHICA HEALTH — 50 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 3.1 | -2.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 49 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 49; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HERITAGE INN OF BARNESVILLE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 05/31/1987 |
| CABLE, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 03/14/2003 |
| DENNIS, KATHRYN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 11/17/2015 |
| NICHOLS, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 11/19/2024 |
| PITTMAN, JACQUELINE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2026 |
| ROLLINS, RONNIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 03/14/2003 |
| WALL, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 03/14/2003 |
| WARNOCK, RALPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/23/2020 |
| CLINICAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/20/2025 |
| CURTIS, RIKEAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/17/2024 |
| PARKER, COREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/06/2026 |
| SHEFFIELD, KIMBERLY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/11/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 GA
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 Georgia 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 115447. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-10, 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.