Comer Health And Rehabilitation
2430 Paoli Road, Comer, GA 30629 · Non profit - Other · 116 certified beds · (706) 783-5116 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- 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 a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 | 9.9% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.5% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.8% | 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 | 10.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.3% | 15.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.3% | 20.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.4% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.3% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.6% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.6% | 19.9% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 2.6% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.1% | 78.4% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.0% | 25.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.3% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.58 | 2.15 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.19 | 1.90 | 1.80 | 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.
56.5% 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 38 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 25.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 48 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.11 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 7% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 56.5%CMS range 44.4–68.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.0%CMS range 6.6–15.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 25.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 35.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 18.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 92.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 3.5–11.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.82 | 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 116 beds and averages 68.8 residents a day — about 59% occupied, or roughly 47 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.48 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.66 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.43 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-02-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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, and review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage in the Care Center, the facility failed to label and date an opened multidose medication vial, leaving no way for staff to determine its beyond-use date for one of one Medication Storage Rooms observed. This deficient practice could have caused the administration of expired or contaminated medication, placing 67 residents at risk for infection, reduced medication effectiveness and incorrect administration of medication.Findings include:A review of the Facility's Pharmacy Services Policy titled Medication Storage In the Care Center dated [DATE] showed under Intent: To facilitate safe, secure, and proper storage of medications and biologicals following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. The Policy further states under Guideline: . Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or otherwise compromised are promptly removed from stock,…
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 before2026-02-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate infection control surveillance and to execute an organized and effective infection control prevention program to include surveillance monitoring. The deficient practice posed the potential for all 67 facility residents to be at increased risk for infection and medication ineffectiveness.Findings include:Review of the Infection Prevention Surveillance Binder for fiscal years 2025 and 2026 revealed surveillance monitoring reports titled HAI (Health Impact Assessment) Summary Reports were incomplete for 12 of 12 months reviewed. There was no analysis for specific trends or documented actions taken. There was no HAI Summary report for October 2025. The tab for October had a blank page and did not list any statistics for the month, infection analysis rates nor actions taken. There also were no HAI reports for August 2025, January 2026 nor February 2026. Interview on 02/26/2026 at 1:13 PM with the Infection Preventionist (IP), who is also the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), and two Surveyors…
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 · E2025-01-16 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy titled Menus, the facility failed to properly prepare foods to conserve nutritive value during the preparation of puree food for nine residents who received a puree diet. The deficient practice had the potential to place nine of nine residents who received a pureed diet at risk of decreased nutritional intake. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Menus, review date 12/29/2023, revealed, Menu items should be nutritionally adequate, attractively served, palatable, at a safe and appetizing temperature, and within cost or budget projections. Observation and interview on 1/15/2025 at 10:16 am with Dietary [NAME] EE revealed he was preparing pureed carrots for nine residents. Dietary [NAME] EE added water and thickener to the puree machine along with the carrots and blended until he stated it was the correct consistency. Dietary [NAME] EE revealed that he did not use vegetable broth when preparing puree and wasn't sure if they had any vegetable broth. A review of the recipe for Carrots Herb Pureed Thick…
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 · D2025-01-16 · 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 observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Patient's Plan of Care, the facility failed to implement care plans for two of 20 sampled residents (R) (R42 and R2). Specifically, the facility failed to provide proper supervision for R42 and to assist with hearing aid placement for (R2). This deficient practice had the potential to affect the residents' health and safety. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled, Patients Plan of Care dated 12/29/2023 under section titled Guideline revealed, Each patient will have a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet his or her other preferences and goals, and address the patients' medical, physical, mental and psychological needs. 1. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R42 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but not limited to Alzheimer's/Dementia, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and history of pedestrian on foot injured in collision…
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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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, resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled Patient Plan of Care and Care of Hearing Aids, the facility failed to assist one out of four sampled residents (R) (R2) with the use of hearing aids. Specifically, the facility failed to assist with the proper use of hearing aids by not placing them in and removing them. This failure to provide the necessary support could result in communication barriers. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled, Care of Hearing Aide dated 12/29/2023 under section titled Intent revealed, The primary intent of caring for a hearing aid is to maintain the patients hearing aid in good order. A review of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) for R2 revealed, she was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but not limited to, need for assistance with personal care, unspecified dementia with mood disturbance, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia,…
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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled Skilled Nursing Services - Elopement, the facility failed to closely monitor one of 13 residents (R) R42 for elopement potential. This deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for safety concerns including but not limited to physical and/or mental distress. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Skilled Nursing Services - Elopement dated 12/29/2023 revealed, the intent is to promote person-centered care for patients at risk for elopement. Guideline documented the center implements mechanisms and procedures for monitoring and managing patients at risk for elopement to minimize the risk of a patient leaving a safe area without authorization and/or appropriate supervision. Procedure revealed the center will take a proactive approach for new patients and assess new admissions for elopement risk. The licensed nurse will re-assess patient at least quarterly, annually, with any significant…
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 before2025-01-16 · 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 and review of facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention Plan, the facility failed to prevent the spread of infections by not properly securing and storing clean linen in one out of three halls (Hall A). This deficient practice had the potential to cause the spread of infection throughout the facility. The facility census was 76 residents. Findings include: Review of facility's policy titled Infection Prevention Plan dated 12/29/2023 under section titled Goals revealed, The goals of the infection prevention program are as follows: To prevent and control the transmission of infectious and communicable diseases; To prevent healthcare associated infections . Under the section titled Scope revealed, The center provides services on an in-patient basis to a geriatric population with various medical conditions, including hospice, hemodialysis and other special needs .Implementation of Preventive Measures: Prevention of a spread of infections is accomplished by use of standard precautions and other barriers. An observation and interview conducted…
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 · E2022-09-29 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — patternEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and review of the policy titled 'Restraints', the facility failed to ensure three residents (R) (R#36, R#64 and R#65) were free from the use of physical restraints. The sample size was 26. Findings include: Review of the undated policy titled 'Restraints' revealed under procedural guidelines- Prior to use of a restraint, the following should be completed: 1. Patient's need for restraint assessed. 2. Restraint Consent. This includes the patient and/or responsible party consent, as well as reason for restraint and type of device. 3. Physician order for device (to include type of device, and when it may be used).' 1. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that R#36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to Huntington's disease, dementia, dysphagia, and aphasia. Review of Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Section C-Cognitive Patterns resident is rarely/never understood and has both short 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 · D2022-09-29 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurate for two residents (R), (R#36 and R#65) of 23 sampled residents. Findings Include: 1. R#36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to Huntington's disease, dementia, dysphagia, and aphasia. Review of Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Section C-Cognitive Patterns resident is rarely/never understood and has both short and long-term memory problems. Section G-Functional Abilities revealed R#36 is dependent on one-person physical assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). Section P-Restraints revealed R#36 does not use physical restraints. Observation on 9/27/22 at 11:48 a.m. revealed R#36 lying in bed with full size bedrails in the up position on both sides of bed. Observation on 9/28/22 at 9:46 a.m. revealed R#36 in bed with full size bedrails in the up position. Observation on 9/29/22 9:33 a.m. revealed R#36 lying…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-09-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, interviews and review of the facility policy titled Skilled Inpatient Services Patient's Plan of Care dated 12/4/21, the facility failed to evaluate and revise the care plan interventions and/or determine the need to identify additional interventions for fall prevention for one resident (R) (#64) who had been assessed to be at risk for falls and who sustained additional falls. The sample size was 26 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Skilled Inpatient Services Patient's Plan of Care with a revision date of 12/4/21 reads: The patient's care plan should be reviewed after each MDS assessment and revised based on changing goals, preferences and needs of the patient and in response to current interventions. The comprehensive car plan should also be updated as ongoing clinical assessments identify changes. Review of the clinical record for R#64 revealed resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of but not limited to orthostatic hypotension,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-09-29 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to obtain a Physician order for use of full size bedrails for one resident (R)#36. The sample size was 26. Findings include: Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that the facility admitted R#36 on 5/3/13. He was admitted with multiple diagnosis that included, but was not limited to Huntington's disease, dementia, dysphagia, and aphasia. Review of R#36's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the R#36 is rarely/never understood and has both short and long-term memory problems. He is dependent on one-person physical assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS also revealed that R#36 does not use physical restraints. Observation on 9/27/22 at 11:48 a.m. revealed R#36 was in bed. Both sides of the bed had full size bedrails in the up position. Observation on 9/28/22 at 9:46 a.m. revealed R#36 was in bed. The full size bedrails in the up position on both sides of the bed. Observation on 9/29/22 9:33…
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 | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 04/01/2014 |
| COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 04/01/2014 |
| CABLE, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/14/2003 |
| DENNIS, KATHRYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/17/2015 |
| NICHOLS, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/19/2024 |
| ROLLINS, RONNIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/14/2003 |
| WALL, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/14/2003 |
| WARNOCK, RALPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/23/2020 |
| CLINICAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2014 |
| AKUKO, JOANNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/09/2026 |
| LAMBERT, RENO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2023 |
| RINGER, DAVE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2025 |
| SHIFLET, CECILA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/10/2025 |
| SHEFFIELD, KIMBERLY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/14/2025 |
| MADISON COUNTY HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/31/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 15 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.
4 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 $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% 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 115289. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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.