Autumn Lane Health And Rehabilitation
302 Georgia 18 East, Gray, GA 31032 · Non profit - Other · 85 certified beds · (478) 986-3151 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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 | 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 6.4% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.1% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 11.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.3% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.8% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.3% | 20.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.8% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.1% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.7% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 2.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 78.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.7% | 25.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.0% | 11.6% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.69 | 2.15 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.49 | 1.90 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
48.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 10.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 40 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.11 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 7% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 48.2%CMS range 33.4–63.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 6.9–18.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 10.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 7.5% | 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 | 17.5% | 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 | 84.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 95.2% | 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 | 2.2% | 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 | 4.3% | 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 | 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 | 1.20 | 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 85 beds and averages 80.6 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 4 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 3.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.46 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-16 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), bathing, and oral hygiene, for one (Resident (R) 78) of two residents reviewed for ADLs out of a sample of 18 residents. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the quality of life for the affected resident. Findings include: Review of R78's Face Sheet located in the Admissions tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R78 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including intracerebral hemorrhage, hemiplegia, muscle weakness, and dysphagia. Review of R78's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) located in the EMR under the MDS tab with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/21/2025 revealed a staff assessment of cognitive skills for daily decision making that indicated R78 was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS also indicated R78 was dependent on staff for bathing and oral hygiene. Review of R78's Care Plan, dated 10/24/2024, located…
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 · D2025-05-16 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration-General, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate below five percent. During medication administration for two residents (R) (R45 and R77), the correct dosage of medication was not administered to the residents. These failures caused two medication errors out of 25 opportunities for error, or a medication error rate of eight percent. These failures had the potential to increase or decrease the effectiveness of these medications. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled Medication Administration-General, revealed Medications are administered in accordance with a valid prescriber order. Prior to medication administration, the Nurse or Certified Medication Aide (CMA): Reads the administration directions on the IVAR and verifies correct medication, dose, and directions for use. 1. Review of R45's Face Sheet, located in the Admissions tab of the electronic…
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 before2025-05-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled Wound Care and Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to adhere to infection control practices and policies during wound care related to staff failing to perform hand hygiene during glove changes and placing supplies on resident's dirty bedside table for two of two residents (Resident (R) 81 and R29) observed for wound care in the sample of 22 residents. The deficient practice increased the risk of cross-contamination and infections. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled Wound Care, provided by the facility indicated, Remove gloves and perform hand hygiene. Put on second clean gloves. Prepare the supplies on a clean surface covered with an impervious barrier. Review of the facility's undated policy titled Hand Hygiene, provided by the facility indicated, Change gloves and perform hand hygiene during patient care, if Gloves become damaged. Gloves become visibly soiled with blood or body fluids…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-09-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and a review of the facility policy titled Skilled Nursing Services, the facility failed to ensure that opened food items were labeled and dated. The facility census was 81, with 79 residents receiving an oral diet. Findings included: A review of the facility policy, Skilled Nursing Services, reviewed 12/30/2022, revealed all items should be covered, sealed, labeled, and dated appropriately. An observation on 9/22/2023 at 8:10 a.m. of the walk-in cooler revealed the following: A baggie containing four eggs was open to air, unlabeled and undated. A baggie containing three eggs was open to the air, unlabeled and undated. A baggie containing two eggs, opened, unlabeled and undated. One five-pound bag of Great Lakes grated cheddar cheese, which was open to the air and unlabeled and undated. One two-pound bag of [NAME] Gusto grated Parmesan cheese, which was open to the air, unlabeled, and undated. An observation of the walk-in-freezer on 9/22/2023 at 8:15 am, revealed 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-24 · 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 interviews, and a review of facility policy titled MDS compliance, the facility failed to ensure three of 25 sampled residents (R) (36, 48, and 62). Minimum Data Set assessments were accurate. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled MDS Compliance last reviewed 12/30/2022 revealed 'Each resident's assessment will be coordinated by and certified as complete by a registered nurse, and all individuals who complete a portion of the assessment will sign and certify to the accuracy of the portion of the assessment he or she completed.' 1. Record review of the Physician orders for R36 revealed an order for Indwelling urinary catheter to bedside drainage dated 11/11/2022. Record review of quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed section H-Bladder and Bowel, was not marked for indwelling catheter use. 2. Record review of the Physician orders for R48 revealed an order for dialysis three times per week dated 3/29/2023. Record Review quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed section O-Special…
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 · D2023-09-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, and a review of facility policy titled, Patient's Plan of Care the facility failed to ensure one of 25 resident (R) (62) care plans were updated following completion of the Minimum Data Set assessment. Findings include: Review of facility policy 'Patient's Plan of Care' last reviewed 12/20/2022 revealed 'The patient's care plan should be reviewed after each MDS assessment and revised based on changing goals, preferences and needs of the patient and in response to current interventions. The comprehensive care plan should also be updated as ongoing clinical assessments identify changes.' Record review of a progress note dated 5/14/2023 revealed the gastrostomy tube was removed. Record review of care plan last reviewed 7/9/2023 revealed an intervention to 'Assess feeding tube placement, patency, and residual every shift and before and after administration of any fluids or medications.' Interview on 9/23/2023 at 9:53 am with MDS coordinator confirmed R62 no longer has a feeding tube. Stated the care plan should have been updated to reflect 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 · Dcited before2023-09-24 · 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 titled Weight and Nutrition Management, the facility failed to ensure a significant weight loss was reported for one of four residents (R) (R50) reviewed nutrition. Findings include: A review of the facility policy, Weight and Nutrition Management, reviewed 12/30/2022, revealed the facility should identify significant weight changes, discuss nutritional needs and issues through a collaborative interdisciplinary team (IDT) environment, consider possible interventions and monitor the effectiveness of the interventions, and notify the registered dietician for any guidance, follow-up, and assessment needs, or as needed. Record review of R50's weights revealed a 5.97% weight loss in 30 days, 7.35% in 90 days, and 10.0% in 180 days. R50 had a 6.35% weight loss between 8/1/2023 and 9/7/2023. A review of the Nutritional Assessment completed by the Dietary Manager (DM) on 9/20/2023 revealed R50 had a 5.97% weight loss in 30 days, a 7.35% weight loss in 90 days, and a 10.0% weight loss in 180 days. The assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy titled, Foley Catheter Care, the facility failed to implement an effective Infection Control Program to prevent the spread of infection by not ensuring Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) AA washed/sanitized her hands during the provision of catheter care for one of three residents (R) (36) with indwelling urinary catheter. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled Foley Catheter Care last reviewed 12/30/2022 revealed 'Provide routine hygiene for meatal care To avoid contaminating the urinary tract, always clean by wiping away from-never toward-the urinary meatus. Use washcloth and soap and water or plain disposable wipe to clean the periurethral area.' Observation on 9/23/2023 at 10:15 am with CNA AA in R36's room, she was observed explaining to resident that she was going to provide catheter care prior to getting her dressed and out of bed. CNA AA donned gloves and placed one rag in the sink to wet it. CNA AA then proceeded to wash R36's face and placed the rag back in the sink under…
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 · D2022-05-22 · 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, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Patient's Plan of Care the facility failed to follow the care plan for one of 31 sampled residents (R) (#45). Findings include: Review of Policy titled Patient's Plan of Care (review date 12/4/21): Each patient will have a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet his other preferences and goals, and address the patient's medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs. Record review revealed R#45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had the following diagnoses: Cerebral infarction, unspecified, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of Resident's Consolidated Order revealed a No added Salt (NAS) order since 5/18/2020. There was also an order for Mighty Shake one carton by mouth with meals with a start date of 5/12/22. Review of the care plan 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 · D2022-05-22 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Foley Catheter Care, the facility failed to ensure catheter care was provided in a manner to prevent urinary tract infections for one of five residents (R) (R#61) with indwelling urinary catheters. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Foley Catheter Care with a review date of 12/4/2021 revealed: Intent - to promote hygiene, comfort and decrease risk of infection for patients with an indwelling catheter and is performed daily and PRN (as needed) for soiling. Please see Lippincott Nursing Procedure [NAME] for additional information on how to complete the procedure. [NAME] (2019) documented to avoid contaminating the urinary tract, always clean by wiping away from and never toward the urinary meatus. The policy does not include information about cross contamination and/or using a clean washcloth/wipe for each stroke. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date 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 · Dcited before2022-05-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to serve one of 31 sampled resident (R) (#45) a Mighty Shake and a no added salt diet as ordered by the Physician. Findings include: Review of document titled Food Nutrition Services (not dated) revealed: Diet: No Added Salt This diet does not receive any salt packets and avoids added salt at the table. Record review revealed R#45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had the following diagnoses: Cerebral infarction, unspecified, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of Resident's Consolidated Order revealed a No added Salt (NAS) order since 5/18/2020. There was also an order for Mighty Shake one carton by mouth with meals with a start date of 5/12/22. There was also a supplement order for House Supplement 150 milliliter by mouth 3 times per day with a start date of 5/12/22. Review…
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 before2022-05-22 · 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 and staff interviews and review of directions for use of the germicidal bleach wipes the facility failed to maintain sanitary and clean conditions on three of four halls(100, 200, and 300). Specifically, the facility failed to follow kill times when cleaning sinks, toilets, and railings in hallways. Findings include: Review of directions for use of the germicidal bleach wipes revealed to clean and disinfect and deodorize hard, nonporous surfaces - wipe wet surface to be disinfected. Use enough wipes for treated surface to remain visibly wet for the contact time listed on label. To kill Mycobacterium bovis, let stand for 3 minutes. Let air dry. If streaking is observed, wipe with a clean, damp cloth or paper towel after appropriate contact time has expired. 1.Observation of environmental cleaning on the 300 hall in room [ROOM NUMBER] on [DATE] began at 9:06 a.m. and concluded at 9:37 a.m. with Laundry Aide/Housekeeper KK revealed the following: 1.At 9:10 a.m. Central began cleaning 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ETHICA HEALTH — 50 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 49 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 49; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CABLE, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/14/2003 |
| DAVIS, GREGORY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2023 |
| DENNIS, KATHRYN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/17/2015 |
| NICHOLS, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/19/2024 |
| ROLLINS, RONNIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/14/2003 |
| WALL, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/14/2003 |
| WARNOCK, RALPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 06/23/2020 |
| CLINICAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/30/2009 |
| LAW, VALERIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/30/2025 |
| PATEL, MAULIKKUMAR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2025 |
| WHIPPLE, KENDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2021 |
| SHEFFIELD, KIMBERLY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/24/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in GA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Georgia Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 115466. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-16, 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.