Pruitthealth - Monroe
4796 Highway 42 North, Forsyth, GA 31029 · For profit - Corporation · 83 certified beds · (478) 994-5662 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 13.7% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.9% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.5% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.0% | 11.3% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.6% | 3.2% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.9% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.8% | 20.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.9% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.6% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.1% | 19.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 2.6% | 1.4% | worse |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.09 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 5% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 83 beds and averages 68.1 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 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 2.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-05-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Pot/Pan Washing and Sanitation and review of the Sanitizing Solution Product Specification document, the facility failed to ensure dishware was air dried before usage to prevent the potential for cross contamination and bacteria contamination. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 62 of 63 residents receiving an oral diet. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Pot/Pan Washing and Sanitation revealed Air dry pots and pans on the drain board. Never use a dish towel. Review of the [name of company/product] Sanitizer Product Specification Document revealed Allow equipment to drain thoroughly and air dry. Observation on 5/4/2024 at 10:45 am of Dietary [NAME] CC taking the food processor bowl, lid, and blade out of the sanitizing solution from the three-compartment sink revealed she placed them on the drying rack for 10 seconds. Dietary cook CC was observed drying the food processor lid and the food processor bowl with a white paper towel. Dietary [NAME] CC did not allow 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 · F2024-05-05 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to properly maintain the walk-in freezer to prevent ice build-up on food storage shelves and food products. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 62 of 63 residents receiving an oral diet. Findings include: Observation on 5/3/2024 at 8:30am of the walk-in freezer revealed ice build-up on the food storage shelf under the air condenser. The food storage shelf had six mounds of ice, the mounds were two inches in height and two inches in diameter. Continued observation revealed ice build-up on the top of food item inside a clear, plastic, resealable bag. The ice build-up on the plastic bag had a mound of ice on the left side that was about three inches in height and two inches in diameter. Further observation revealed ice build-up on top of a food item that was inside a box. The food item had a small ice mound on top that was about one inch in height and half inch in diameter. Observation on 5/5/2024 at 9:00 am of the walk-in freezer revealed that the previous ice build-up on the food storage shelf and on 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 · D2024-05-05 · 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, staff interview, and review of facility policy titled, MDS Assessment Accuracy, the facility failed to accurately code an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II for one of 26 sampled residents (R) (R2) from a sample of 26 residents. The deficient practice had the potential to affect the accurate assessment of R2's care needs. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled MDS Assessment Accuracy revealed it is the policy of this healthcare center that each Minimum Data Set (MDS) reflect the acuity and the medical status of each patient/resident in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices. The assessment will be scheduled to accurately account for the acuity and complexity of the patient/resident. Each Assessment Reference Date (AFD) will be chosen to capture services rendered and reflect an accurate clinical profile of each patient/resident. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR)…
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 · D2024-05-05 · 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, resident and staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow the care plan for three of 26 sampled Residents (R) (R14, R24, and R30). Specifically, the facility failed to create a care plan for nutrition services for R14; failed to follow a physician's order for oxygen (O2) that was care planned for R24; and failed to add refusal of hand splint in the care plan for R30. The deficient practice had the potential for R14, R24, and R30 not to receive needed care services. Findings include: 1.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for R14 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of R14's Physician Orders revealed an order for a regular, no added salt (NAS) diet. Review of R14's care plans revealed no care plan created for nutrition. Review of a Registered Dietician Note/Nutrition assessment dated [DATE] documented etiology: poor appetite intake, with intervention large…
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 · D2024-05-05 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility's policies titled, Restorative Nursing Program and Restorative Nursing Process, the facility failed to follow an Occupational Therapy (OT) Restorative Nursing Program (RNP) recommendation for orthotic application for two of 26 sampled residents (R) (R1 and R30) reviewed for ROM and mobility. This deficient practice had the potential of resulting in progression of contractures. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Restorative Nursing Program revised 11/4/2021 revealed it is the policy of the healthcare center to provide restorative nursing which actively focuses on achieving and maintaining optimal physical, mental, and psychological functioning and wellbeing of the patient/resident. Documentation: 1. Restorative nursing care will be documented in the electronic health record (EHR) or paper form. 2. The nurse will evaluate patient's progress. Document in patient's care plan. Review of facility's…
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 · D2024-05-05 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration, the facility failed to ensure oxygen (O2) was administered in accordance with the physician order for one of 20 residents (R) (R24) receiving oxygen therapy. The deficient practice had the potential for respiratory difficulty for R24. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Policy titled Oxygen Administration revealed under category Policy Statement It is the policy of [NAME] Health Hospice and Healthcare Centers/Veteran Homes to provide oxygen safely and accurately to appropriate patients /residents. Oxygen will be administered by licensed personnel only when ordered by the physician, PA, or NP. The physician order may be written PRN [as needed] for comfort /dyspnea [shortness of breath] or may specify the number or liters, method of administration and length of time the oxygen is to be administered. Review of R24 's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-05 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, review of the facility's policies titled, Medication Administration: Oral Medications and Medication Administration: Insulin Injections and review of the facility document titled, Oral Dosage Forms That Should Not Be Crushed 2016, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5%. There were two errors with 27 opportunities for two of five residents (R) (R38 and R56) for a medication error rate of 7.41%. These failures had the potential to result in medication not being given in accordance with the physician's orders or manufacturer's recommendations and the potential to adversely affect R38 and R56's clinical conditions. Findings include: 1. A review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration: Oral Medications, revised 12/10/2021, revealed the Policy Statement of It is the policy of [facility name] Pharmacy that oral medications are administered in an organized and safe manner. The Special Considerations section included 1. Refer to Crush List prior to crushing any medication for assurance…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-13 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy Documentation of Skin and Wound Care, the facility failed to ensure wound assessments were completed weekly for one of three sampled residents (R2) and failed to accurately document skin assessments for one of three sampled residents (R2). Findings include: Review of facility policy Documentation of Skin and Wound Care revealed 'Policy Statement: It is the policy of the Healthcare center to complete documentation that reflects the current resident status as related to skin/wound care. Documentation will provide current and timely documentation on resident's condition related to skin/wound care, accurate information on resident's status as it pertains to skin/wound care, record care rendered and interventions in place and provide a detailed history of the wound assessments that have occurred in the healthcare center. Weekly Documentation: Weekly Documentation of Treatments will be completed on Wound Manager in the EHR (electronic health record) and Focus Observation to include Skin observation.' Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-13 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy Weight Monitoring Program, the facility failed to ensure resident with significant weight loss was addressed in a timely manner for one of three sample residents (R2) with a significant weight loss. Findings include: Review of facility policy 'Weight Monitoring Program' last revised 6/2/2023 revealed 'Weight Team: 3. Weight Team Responsibilities: The Weight Team's responsibilities include evaluating weights for significant changes; recommending appropriate interventions; reviewing patient/resident meal, supplement, and snack intakes; revision of interventions, if necessary; attending weekly meetings; completing the Weight Loss/Gain Checklist and completing weekly documentation in the patient/resident's chart.' Record review of the most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) for R2 dated 8/2/2023 revealed under section K-Swallowing/Nutritional Status revealed resident had a 5% weight loss in one month or a 10% weight loss in six months and was not on physician prescribed weight loss regimen. Record review 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 · Fcited before2022-10-23 · 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, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure opened food items in the walk-in refrigerator were dated; failed to discard food items after Best If Use By date; and failed to properly thaw food items to prevent food borne illness. This deficient practice had the potential to effect 49 of 51 residents receiving an oral diet. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Labeling, Dating, and Storage with a reviewed date of 1/8/21 revealed: Foods will be stored in their original containers or in an approved container or wrapped tightly with film, foil, etc and clearly labeled with the name of the item and the use by date. The policy also stated those items that require refrigeration and/or require refrigeration once they have been opened will be labeled with the use by date. Review of the facility policy titled Foodborne Illnesses with a reviewed date of 1/8/21 revealed: Foods will be used before the expiration date, use by date, best by date, and sell by date indicated on the food item. Food not used prior to the expiration date, use by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-23 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) (Form CMS-10055) to two residents (R) (R#18 and #43) who remained in the facility from a sample of five residents who were discharged from Medicare Part A services in the last six months. Findings include: 1. R#18 was discharged from Medicare Part A services on 8/19/22 and remained in the facility. However, the only notice that was provided to the resident was the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) (Form CMS-10123). There was no evidence that the facility had issued an SNFABN (Form CMS-10055) to R#18 or her responsible party, providing the opportunity to continue with skilled services, at her cost, if Medicare did not reimburse. 2. R#43 was discharged from Medicare Part A services on 6/3/22 and remained in the facility. However, the only notice provided to the resident was the NOMNC (Form CMS-10123). There was no evidence that the facility had issued the SNFABN (Form CMS-10055) to R#43 or his responsible party, providing the opportunity to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy titled ''Medication Storage in the Healthcare Centers, the facility failed to ensure all medications carts were locked when out of view of the nurse for one of two medication carts and failed to ensure medications were properly secured inside of the medication cart when out of view of the nurse. Eight of 51 residents were wanderers. Findings include: Review of facility policy Medication Storage in the Healthcare Centers last revised 9/15/17 revealed: Procedure: 2. Only licensed nurses and the pharmacy personnel are allowed access to medications. Respiratory Therapists may access medications used in the provision of respiratory services. Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked or attended by persons with authorized access. During observation of medication cart on 10/22/22 at 8:01 a.m. the medication cart was unlocked and unattended. The Administrator locked the cart and stated the nurse must have forgot to lock it. During observation of medication administration on 10/22/22 with RN AA revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-23 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and recipe review the facility failed to properly prepare puree Salisbury steak to ensure adequate nutrient content. This deficient practice had the potential to effect 10 residents receiving a pureed diet from 49 residents that receive an oral diet. Findings include: Review of the cycle menu for lunch meal revealed residents ordered puree diet were to receive Baked Beef Steak. Review of the recipe for Puree Salisbury Steak revealed ingredients consist of prepared Salisbury steak, broth from base, and thickener. Observation on 10/22/22 at 10:30 a.m. of dietary cook BB puree Baked Beef Steak revealed dietary cook BB placed 12 cooked beef steaks in the food processor and purred, opened the lid and added 4 more beef steak to the food processor bowl and pureed. Dietary cook BB then poured about two cups of hot water into the food processor bowl using a gallon measuring pitcher and pureed. The cook opened the lid and added about another two cups of hot water and pureed. Dietary cook BB finished puree and placed in steam table pan. During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 PRUITTHEALTH — 95 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
The other 94 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 94; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| JOHNSON, BRITTANY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 01/24/2022 |
| PRUITT, NEIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/24/2007 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 2 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.
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.
About 77% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. 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.
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 115379. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-14, 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.