Taylor County Health And Rehabilitation
165 South Broad Street, Butler, GA 31006 · Non profit - Other · 78 certified beds · (478) 862-2220 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $8,512 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-28)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 | 6.9% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.1% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.8% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.9% | 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 | 2.3% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.0% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.0% | 20.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.2% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.7% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.0% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.6% | 1.4% | better |
§ 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.
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 9% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 78 beds and averages 66.3 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 12 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 3.14 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.39 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.98 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 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.20 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
- Actual harm · G2024-08-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review titled Patient's Plan of Care, the facility failed to ensure the development of care plans were person centered and detailed the care assistance residents needed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for one of three residents (R) (52) reviewed for accidents and hazards. R52's care plan failed to indicate the amount of assistance needed to prevent falls. The facility assessed R52 to require the assistance of two staff persons for bathing; however, the resident's care plan did not indicate the number of staff the resident needed for bathing assistance. During a bed bath, R52 was only assisted by one staff person, even though the facility assessed the resident to need two staff persons. This failure caused actual harm to the resident, when the resident fell out of bed during the bed bath and sustained a closed head injury and a laceration. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Patient's Plan of Care dated 12/29/2023, revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-08-28 · 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 interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Fall Management, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accidents and hazards as possible for one of three residents (R) (52) reviewed for accidents out of 21 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility assessed R52 required the assistance of two- staff persons for bathing; however, the resident was only assisted by one staff person when the resident fell from her bed. This failure caused R52 to sustain actual harm of a closed head injury with a laceration. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Fall Management review date of 12/29/2023, revealed each patient is assisted in attaining/maintaining his or her highest practicable level of function by providing the patient adequate supervision, assistive devices, and/or functional programs as appropriate to minimize the risk for falls. Each patient's risk for falls is evaluated by the interdisciplinary team (IDT). A plan of care is developed and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-01-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Food Preparation and Distribution, the facility failed to ensure proper thawing process was followed. In addition, the facility failed to sanitize food preparation surfaces in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as required in the facility's kitchen. These deficient practices had the potential to cause food-borne illness among all 67 residents who received meals from the facility kitchen. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Food Preparation and Distribution, dated 12/27/2024, revealed that It is the intent of this center to prepare and distribute food in a manner that minimizes the risk of food-borne illness and promotes safe food handling practices by no bare hand contact with food items and work surfaces and equipment should be cleaned and sanitized as needed by appropriate sanitizer concentration of 150-400 parts per million (ppm). Thawing methods should be under refrigeration and food items should be in a drip-proof container and by…
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 · D2026-01-08 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one of 18 residents (Resident (R) 48) reviewed for MDS in a total sample of 28 residents. This deficient practice increased the potential for missed opportunities for care or services. Findings include:Review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2025, revealed the instructions for coding the tracheostomy care were to be coded . when performed while a resident of this facility and within the past 14 days . including if the resident performs the care.Review of R48's Face Sheet, undated and located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab, indicated an admission date of 9/19/2022 and diagnoses included a permanent tracheostomy site. Review of R48's discharge, return anticipated MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/26/2025, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed…
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 · D2026-01-08 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
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 Dental Services/Oral Assessments, the facility failed to ensure routine or emergency dental services were provided for one of four residents (Resident (R) 22) reviewed for dental services. This deficient practice had the potential to place R22 at risk of pain and discomfort and to increase the risk of unmet nutritional needs.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Dental Services/Oral Assessments, last reviewed on 12/27/2024, stated, It is the intent of this center to promote person-centered care through appropriate oral care and facilitation of dental services. Under the facility's guideline, The center provides or obtains oral health care and dental services to meet the needs of each patient to the extent covered under State law. Under the facility's procedure, Dental Services, if necessary or if requested by the patient, the center will assist the patient in making appointments. Under the facility's procedure, Oral Assessments, oral assessment should be completed 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-28 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Skilled Nursing Services, Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to ensure an effective infection control and prevention program was implemented during medication pass for four of 11 residents (R) (43, 38, 17, and 57) reviewed for medication administration. Specifically, the nurse failed to ensure proper hand hygiene practices were implemented dur the administration of medication. This failure could promote the spread of multi drug resistant organisms (MDROs) throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Skilled Nursing Services, Hand Hygiene, revised on 12/29/2023, indicated, under the section Intent: It is the intent of this facility to promote and facilitate appropriate hand washing .GUIDELINE .Associates should use alcohol based hand rub or wash hands with soap and water for the following indications: Immediately before touching a patient. Before performing an aseptic task (e.g., placing an indwelling device or handling indwelling devices). Before moving…
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 · E2024-03-05 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Hydration, the facility failed to offer additional fluids to residents on one of three units, the secure unit, during two of three lunch meals observed. The deficient practice had the potential to prevent the maintenance of adequate hydration status of the 11 residents residing in the secure unit. Findings include: A review of the policy titled Hydration, with a review date of 12/29/2023, stated the policy Intent was: It is the intent of this center to provide patients with adequate hydration to assist in maintaining proper hydration and health, while honoring preferences. The Guideline section included: Hydration will be served on all meal trays and available throughout the day. Hydration will be consistent with the patient's needs and desires. A variety of items will be available to meet hydration needs and patient preferences. Nursing will provide ice water each shift, unless contraindicated. During an observation of the lunch meal served on the secure unit on 2/21/2024 from 12:43 pm to 1:30 pm,…
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 · E2024-03-05 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and a review of the facility policy titled Allocation of Human Resources Nursing Staff, the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff in the secure unit during meals to ensure a resident (R) (R5) was not taking other residents' food or beverages and to ensure there was adequate staff to provide the residents with beverage refills. There were 11 residents residing in the secure unit. The deficient practice had the potential to place the residents at risk for unmet care needs. Findings include: A review of the policy titled Allocation of Human Resources Nursing Staff, with a review date of 12/29/2023, revealed the Intent stated: It is the intent of this center to allocate nursing staff to meet nursing needs of patients. During the lunch observation on the secure unit on 2/21/2024 at 12:43 pm, there was one Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) supervising 11 residents who resided on the unit. There were two rooms across the hall from each other that were designated for dining. The CNA was in one room feeding a resident which also had five…
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 · D2024-03-05 · 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 observation, resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Suprapubic Catheter Care, the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff provided routine indwelling urinary catheter care for one resident (R) (R15), from a sample of 16 residents. This deficient practice had the potential to increase R15's risk of urinary tract infection. Findings include: A review of the policy titled Suprapubic Catheter Care, with a review date of 12/29/2023, revealed the intent of the policy was to provide guidelines for the care of new and established suprapubic catheters. The Guideline section included a line that stated: Clean the insertion site and catheter daily with soap and water. A review of R15's clinical record revealed that she had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, neurogenic bladder, and quadriplegia. A review of the 12/8/2023 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed that R15 was assessed with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 11 (indicating moderate cognitive impairment) and having an indwelling…
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 before2024-03-05 · 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 observation, staff interviews, record review, and review of an instructional document titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, published by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) following recommended practice and failed to ensure Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care was provided in a sanitary manner for one resident (R) (R15), from a sample of 16 residents. These deficient practices had the potential to increase R15's risk of infection. Findings include: A review of R15's clinical record revealed diagnoses included but were not limited to, neurogenic bladder and quadriplegia. A review of the 12/8/2023 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed that R15 was assessed as having an indwelling urinary catheter and being incontinent of bowel. A review of the care plan revealed a care area of a self-care deficit and needed assistance from staff with ADL care. Interventions assigned to the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Nurse included PPE when providing care. 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 · Fcited before2023-01-29 · 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 a review of the facility policies titled, Storage Areas and Cleaning and Sanitizing, the facility failed to securely close open food items in the dry storage; remove dented cans from potential use; and demonstrate proper sanitizing practices with the three-compartment sink for 54 of 57 residents consuming an oral diet. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Storage Areas revealed that items should be covered, sealed, labeled, and dated appropriately. Dry storage and dented cans should be stored separately in a clearly labeled area. Review of the policy titled Cleaning and Sanitizing revealed that three-compartment sink items should be fully submerged in the sanitizer solution according to the manufacturers' guidelines. Observation on 1/27/2023 at 8:55 a.m. of the dry storage area revealed an opened 22-ounce bag of orange beverage drink mix that was not securely closed. Continued observation revealed a plastic bin with dried pasta, this bin contained an open bag of elbow macaroni and two bags of spaghetti noodles that were opened…
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 · F2023-01-29 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — widespreadSafeguard 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 observation, staff interviews, and a review of the facility policy titled, Information Technology - Safeguarding and Storage of Protected Health Information (PHI), the facility failed to ensure resident medical records for disposal were kept securely for 57 residents. Findings include: A review of the facility policy, Information Technology - Safeguarding and Storage of Protected Health Information (PHI), policy number HIPAA 164.530, dated 2021, revealed the facility was to maintain PHI in a safe and secure location that is easily accessible for authorized use, limit unauthorized access, and safeguard against loss and tampering of PHI. A further review revealed that records/PHI would not be kept in public areas, and when unattended, PHI would be stored in a locked office or storage. A review of the facility's shredding service invoice, ticket number 450221, revealed that the company picked up documents from the facility on 1/16/2023 at 10:05 a.m. and was scheduled to service the facility again on 4/10/2023. An observation of the document disposal containers on 1/29/2023 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 · E2023-01-29 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure 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 observation, record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy titled, Medication Administration - General and Enteral Tube Medication Administration, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent (5%). A total number of 28 medication opportunities were observed, and there were six errors for one of five residents (R) (R #5), for an error rate of 21.43%. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration - General dated 2019 revealed the intent of the policy is to ensure medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good nursing principle. Medications are administered in accordance with a valid prescriber order. Prior to medication administration: the nurse should read the administration directions on the MAR (medication administration record) and verify correct medication, dose, and directions for use. Review of the facility policy titled Enteral Tube Medication Administration dated 2019 revealed it is recommended that crushed medications not be combined and given all at once…
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
$8,512 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $4,256 — penalty dated 2024-08-28
- $4,256 — penalty dated 2024-08-28
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-10-01 for 9 days
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.
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 | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| DANFORTH, LARALEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/04/2025 |
| MURRAY, TRINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/20/2023 |
| SATCHELL, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| SHEFFIELD, KIMBERLY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/05/2025 |
| CLINICAL SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/05/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.
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 $883K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% 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 115507. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-08, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.