Regency Park Health And Rehabilitation
1212 Broadrick Drive, Dalton, GA 30720 · Non profit - Corporation · 100 certified beds · (706) 270-8008 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,512 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-11)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 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 | 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 improved from 2 to 4 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 | 19.3% | 15.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.1% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| 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 | 7.9% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.1% | 15.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.2% | 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 | 6.8% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.1% | 15.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.1% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 2.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.2% | 78.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.7% | 25.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.4% | 11.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.33 | 2.15 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.55 | 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.
63.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 422 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.5% 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 218 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 0.50 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 81% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 63.2%CMS range 58.2–68.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 7.7–12.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 77.5% | 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 | 61.5% | 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 | 73.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 7.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 87.2% | 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 | 0.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.7%CMS range 4.1–10.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.89 | 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 100 beds and averages 91.8 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.476 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.73 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.88 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.72 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.78 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-05-03 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled HLTC Care Planning, the facility failed to implement the baseline care plan interventions for risk for falling for one of three residents (R) (R241) reviewed related to fall risk. Actual Harm occurred on October 30, 2023, when R241 was left unsupervised in the restroom, and fell off the toilet, resulting in a fracture to her right lower leg and ankle. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled HLTC Care Planning with a reviewed/revised date of 3/21/2023, revealed that the facility will develop and implement a baseline care plan evaluation with the (electronic medical record (EMR)) for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and resident-centered care. A review of the EMR revealed R241 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include atrial fibrillation, chronic diastolic congestive heart failure (CHF), Parkinsonism, obesity, chronic kidney…
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 · G2024-05-03 · 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 interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled Falls and HLTC Care Planning, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent an avoidable fall for one of three sampled residents (R) (R241) reviewed related to fall risk. Harm occurred on 10/30/2023 when R241 was left unsupervised on the toilet and fell, resulting in a fracture to her right lower leg and ankle. Findings included: A review of the Fall Policy with a reviewed/revised date of 3/1/2020 revealed the facility's management of falls focuses on resident-centered assessment to aid in the prevention of falls. It was noted that a resident assessment of fall risk will be completed upon admission to determine if the resident is low risk, moderate risk, or high risk for falling and a care plan will be developed to list their resident-centered interventions. A review of the HLTC Care Planning Policy with a reviewed/revised date of 3/21/2023 revealed that the facility will develop and implement a baseline care plan…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, HLTC Advance Directives for Health Care Policy, the facility failed to establish mechanisms for documenting and communicating the resident's choices for code status (advanced directives) to staff responsible for the resident's care for one of 34 sampled residents (R) (R1). The deficient practice had the potential to prevent R1 from expressing her right to formulate an advanced directive.Findings include:A review of the facility policy titled HLTC Advance Directives for Health Care Policy revised [DATE], documented under Purpose: Support the resident's right, in accordance with Georgia law, to formulate Advance Directives, honor existing Advance Directives, and revoke Advance Directives. Under Policy and Procedure: 1. The facility will promote the resident's right to formulate an Advance Directive, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment, and revise or revoke an existing Advance Directive at any…
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 · D2025-08-14 · 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
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review and review of the facility's policy titled, Care Planning, the facility failed to implement the care plan for risk of falls for one of 34 residents sampled (R) (R17). This deficient practice had the potential to place the resident at risk of decreasing the resident's practicable physical, mental and psychological well-being.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Care Planning dated 11/1/2019, documented under Policy: .D. Care Plan Reviews.1. The resident's comprehensive care plan will be reviewed, revised, and updated on a PRN basis, as determined by new and/or temporary resident condition changes that do not meet the significant change MDS criteria, yet require care plan updates per policy.Review of care plan for R17 dated 11/2/2020 revealed that staff are to assist R17 with toileting and stay in attendance during toileting as indicated. An additional review of the care plan revealed that staff are to respond promptly to all requests for assistance.During an observation of R17 on 8/13/2025 at 10:14…
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 before2025-08-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to ensure that staff used proper infection control practices as evidenced by staff not performing appropriate hand hygiene between glove changes during catheter and perineal care for one of four residents (R) (R3) with catheters. The deficient practice had the potential to transfer pathogens and increase the risk of infection transmission for R3.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled titled Hand Hygiene with a revision date of 3/20/2024 revealed under Policy:.A. Hand Hygiene.1. Hand hygiene will be performed by washing hands with soap (anti-microbial) or using alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) on hands. 2. Healthcare personnel (HCP) will perform hand hygiene with ABHR or soap and water for the following clinical indications that include but are not limited to after removing gloves or other personal protective equipment. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-04-11 · 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 record review of the facility's policy titled Food Receiving and Storage with revised date of 2/22/2024, the facility failed to label and date open food items stored in the freezer. The census was 85. Findings included: The facility's policy titled Food Receiving and Storage revealed, Food shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with food and safe food handling practices. The policy further documented that all foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer would be covered, labeled, and dated with a used by date. An initial observation of the kitchen on 4/9/2024 at 8:55 am revealed the following were opened and not dated or labeled: frozen cookie dough (120 pieces), fish patties (10 pieces), beef patties (40 pieces), hash brown (1/2 bag), and fries (1/2 bag). During an interview on 4/9/2024 at 8:50 am, the Certificate Food Manager (CFM) revealed that he has only been working in current position for a few months. He stated that he was aware that the open food items in the refrigerator needed to be labeled and dated but he did…
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 · D2024-04-11 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notices (SNFABN) forms were completed for one of three sampled residents (R) (R27). Findings included: A review of a facility-completed worksheet Beneficiary Notice-Residents discharged Within the Last Six Months, revealed that R27 was discharged from a Medicare-covered Part A stay, still had benefit days remaining, and remained in the facility after their last covered day. A review of the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Beneficiary Protection Notification Review form for R27 indicated that services were initiated on 12/15/2023 and discharged from Medicare Part A services on 2/23/2024, and she remained in the facility with Part A benefit days remaining. An Advance Beneficiary Notice of Noncoverage was (ABN) was not completed for R27. A review of the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) indicated the effective date coverage of your skilled nursing facility services will end 2/23/2024. 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 before2022-05-12 · 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 observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff members wore personal protective equipment (PPE), specifically face masks, in a manner that ensured the face masks fully covered staff members' noses and mouths in order to optimize source-control strategies and reduce the potential for COVID-19 transmission for one of two floors (second floor), for one of one facility entrance, and while in resident-care areas. Findings include: A review of the facility policy Required and Extended-Use Masking Policy for Healthcare Personnel (HCP) During COVID-19 Pandemic revealed, Effective Date: January 2022. Original Implementation Date: May 2020. Reference: CDC COVID-19, 'Your Guide to Masks'; Purpose: The virus is often spread before individuals begin experiencing symptoms; This policy is designed to protect against asymptomatic transmission and is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC - 4/13/20); Procedure: 2. If employees/HCP have screened negative for fever/temperature 100.0 [degrees Fahrenheit], symptoms of…
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 · E2022-05-12 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment for five of 19 sampled residents (R) (R#34, R#36, R#50, R#59, and R#68) related to receiving meals from the kitchen on Styrofoam takeout containers and plastic utensils. Findings include: Observations on 5/9/22 at 1:05 p.m. of the meal service on the first-floor revealed residents were served their lunch in Styrofoam takeout containers with plastic utensils. During an interview on 5/9/22 at 10:06 a.m., R#59 stated that all meals were served in Styrofoam takeout containers with plastic utensils. The resident stated it would be much nicer to eat off a plate with real silverware. During an interview on 5/9/22 at 10:43 a.m., R#34 said the food was always cold because it was served on Styrofoam plates. During an interview on 5/9/22 at 1:30 p.m., R#68 revealed the facility had been serving meals in Styrofoam takeout containers for a long time. The resident said the plastic utensils and Styrofoam made it hard to deal with and cut food. During a Resident Council group interview on 5/11/22 at 10:54…
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 · E2022-05-12 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled ADL Policy, the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for three of five sampled residents (R)(R#47, R#48, and R#65) related to shaving, bathing, and fingernail care. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled ADL Policy dated 1/1/19, revealed: Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care, including appropriate support and assistance with: Hygiene (bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care). 1. A review of R#47's admission Record indicated the facility admitted R#47 with diagnoses including chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, Alzheimer's disease, and muscle…
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 · E2022-05-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review and review of facility policies titled, Skin Breakdown Prevention, Skin Integrity-Overview, and Skin, Wound and Pressure Ulcer Treatment-Overview, the facility failed to ensure treatment and services for prevention and management of pressure ulcers were provided in accordance with accepted standards of practice for three of four sampled residents (R) (R#33, R#65, and R#66) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Skin Breakdown Prevention, dated 3/1/20, revealed the purpose of the policy was, To put measures in place to prevent residents from developing wounds/pressure ulcers, unless clinically unavoidable. According to the policy, The facility will utilize clinical information to determine appropriate and resident specific skin breakdown prevention measures needed. These may include, but not be limited to: Clinical assessments (admission/readmission assessments, MDS [Minimum Data Set], skin assessments and Braden…
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 · E2022-05-12 · 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, review of facility policy titled Medication Administration - General, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent (5%). A total number of 33 medication opportunities were observed, and there were five errors for three of three residents (R) (R #29, R#56, R#34) for an error rate of 15.15%. Findings include: 1. A review of R#29's Orders, dated 2/17/22, directed staff to instill one drop of Restasis Multidose Ophthalmic Emulsion (chronic dry eye syndrome treatment) in each eye. An observation of medication pass with Registered Nurse (RN) LL on 5/9/22 at 9:49 a.m. for R#29 revealed RN LL administered one drop of Restasis in each of R#29's eyes. R#29 requested RN LL apply more drops. The surveyor observed RN LL instill an additional drop of Restasis into each eye. During an interview with RN LL on 5/9/22 at 9:56 a.m., RN LL erroneously stated the doctor's order for Restasis directed staff to administer two drops in each of R#29's eyes. 2. A review of R#56's Orders, dated 8/3/20, and 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 · D2022-05-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to consult with the resident's physician to obtain treatment orders for one of 19 sampled residents (R)(R#33) related to newly identified skin breakdown Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Change of Condition, dated 1/1/19, revealed, The facility will inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative(s) when there is: A significant change in the resident's physical, mental, psychosocial status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications); A need to alter treatment significantly (that is, a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment). A review of R#33's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a Brief…
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 · D2022-05-12 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, observations, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Physician Services, the facility failed to ensure staff followed physician orders for one of 19 sampled residents (R)(R#1) related to the application of thrombo-embolus deterrent (TED) stockings. Findings include: A review of the facility policy, Physician Services dated 1/1/19, revealed: It is the policy of the facility to provide Physician Services in accordance to [sic] State and Federal regulations. 6. All physician orders will be followed as prescribed and if not followed, the reason shall be recorded on the resident's medical record. During an interview and observation on 5/9/22 at 11:16 a.m., R#1 stated he/she was supposed to wear TED hose for edema. R#1 was observed to have socks and tennis shoes on both feet but did not have on TED hose. The resident stated that he/she was told by staff the TED hose had gone to the laundry, and the hose had not been seen since then. During an observation and interview on 5/10/22…
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 · D2022-05-12 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled, Pain Management,, the facility failed to ensure one two residents (R) (R#66) of reviewed for pain received an effective pain management program. Specifically, the facility failed to administer R#66's pain medication in a timely manner and ensure orders for pain medications were initiated in a timely manner. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled, Pain Management, dated 1/1/19, indicated, Assessment and Recognition 4. The nursing staff will identify any situations or interventions where an increase in the resident's pain may be anticipated, for example, wound care, ambulation, or repositioning. Treatment/Management: 1. With input from the resident to the extent possible, the provider and staff will establish goals of pain treatment. 2. The provider will order appropriate non-pharmacologic and medication interventions to address the individual's pain. 3. As appropriate, staff will provide the elements of a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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.
- $4,225 — penalty dated 2024-04-11
- $4,287 — penalty dated 2024-04-11
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAMILTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/01/1999 |
| HLTC INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2007 |
| CARRAZANA, GEORGE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/05/2017 |
| PHARR, DAWN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/06/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $233K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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, FY2023). 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 115663. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, 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.