Brightmoor Nursing Center, LLC
3235 Newnan Road, Griffin, GA 30223 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 133 certified beds · (770) 228-8599 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 fell from 4 to 2 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 | 32.3% | 15.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.3% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.2% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 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 | 1.8% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 65.8% | 15.2% | 16.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 33.1% | 20.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.1% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.6% | 15.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.9% | 19.9% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 2.6% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 80.4% | 78.4% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.5% | 25.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.0% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.50 | 2.15 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.50 | 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.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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.
59.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 355 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 36.1% 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 155 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 59.6%CMS range 53.7–63.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.9%CMS range 9.7–16.0 | 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 | 36.1% | 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 | 38.1% | 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 | 27.1% | 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 | 98.8% | 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 | 97.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.4% | 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 | 2.5% | 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 | 8.2%CMS range 5.8–11.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 133 beds and averages 130.4 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.28 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.24 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.88 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.43 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.27 to 0.17 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-18 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and a review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, the facility failed to ensure that one of three sampled residents (R) (R6) was free from abuse.Findings included:A review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, coronary artery disease (CAD), hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, hyponatremia, and hyperlipidemia. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that R6 presented with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, indicating a severe cognitive deficit. A review of the EMR revealed that R6 was discharged to another facility on 1/30/2026. A review of the EMR revealed that R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, non-traumatic brain dysfunction and dementia. A review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that…
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 · F2025-12-21 · 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's policies titled Food Safety and Sanitation, the facility failed to ensure proper food labeling, dating, and storage, and failed to ensure food items were not available for resident consumption past their expiration date. These deficient practices had the potential to place the 118 residents who received an oral diet from the kitchen at risk of contracting a foodborne illness. Findings Include:Review of the facility's policy titled Food Safety and Sanitation, dated 2021, revealed the Food Storage section included, All time and temperature control for safety (TCS) foods (including leftovers) should be labeled, covered, and dated when stored.When a food package is opened, the food item should be marked to indicate the open date. This date is used to determine when to discard the food.Leftovers are used within 72 hours (or discarded). Note: 2017 Federal food code guidelines allow 7 days for food safety, with the day of preparation counted as day 1 of the 7 days, and then the food is discarded. Check local and state…
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 · D2025-12-21 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights, the facility failed to obtain consent from the resident or responsible party (RP) for the use of psychotropic medication treatment for two of five residents (R) (R16 and R21) sampled for the use of unnecessary medications. This deficient practice had the potential to place R16 and R21 at risk of medical complications. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights, revised December 2016, revealed the Policy Interpretation and Implementation: section included, 1. Federal and state laws guaranteed certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the Residents to . P. Be informed of, and participate in, his or her care planning and treatment. 1. Review of the admission Record for R16, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited 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 · D2025-12-21 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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, and review of the facility's policy titled Self-Administration of Medications, the facility failed to assess one of 48 sampled residents (R) (R8) for the ability ot safely self-administer medications before leaving medications at the bedside. This deficient practice had the potential to place R8 at risk of overmedicating and medical complications. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Self-Administration of Medications, revised December 2012, documented Policy Statement: Residents in our facility who wish to self-administer their medications may do so, if it is determined that they are capable of doing so. 1. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: As part of their overall evaluation, the staff and practitioner will assess each resident's mental and physical abilities, to determine whether a resident is capable of self-administering medications. 2. In addition to general evaluation of decision-making capacity, the staff and practitioner…
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 before2025-12-21 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, the facility failed to protect one of 49 sampled residents (R) (R75) rights to be free from verbal abuse by another resident (R49). This deficient practice had the potential to place R75 at risk of a diminished quality of life.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, revised 6/14/2024, included It is the intent of this facility to actively preserve each resident's right to be free from mistreatment, neglect, abuse, or misappropriation of resident property. We believe that each resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusions. The Definitions section included, . 2. Verbal Abuse is defined as any use of oral, written, or gestured language that willfully includes sparing and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within hearing distance, regardless of their…
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 · D2025-12-21 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted in a timely manner following an allegation of resident-to-resident verbal abuse involving two residents (R) (R75 and R49) from a sample of 49. Findings include:A review of the facility's policy Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, revised 6/14/2024, revealed the Investigation section included, . 4. Interviews will be conducted all pertinent parties. Written signed statements from any involved parties will be obtained and notarized, if possible. Statements will be gathered from the suspect person making accusations resident involved, reliable resident who may have witness the incident and any other persons who may have some information identify any possible conflicts between witnesses. 5. Past performances and/or previous incident of involved parties will be evaluated. Review of schedules and assignments showing when and where…
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 before2025-12-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Care Plan-Comprehensive, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two of 48 sampled residents (R) (R109 and R14). This deficient practice had the potential to place R109 and R14 at risk of unmet needs, medical complications, and a diminished quality of life. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Care Plan-Comprehensive, last revised October 2010, revealed that the facility's interdisciplinary and care plan teams would develop and maintain a comprehensive care plan for each resident, which would incorporate identified problems.1. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for R109, dated 10/11/2025, revealed that Section H (Bowel and Bladder) documented that R109 had an indwelling urinary catheter.Review of the Order Summary Report for R109 revealed active orders for an indwelling urinary catheter and catheter care.Review of the care plan for R109 revealed no care plan for the indwelling urinary catheter. Observations on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, observation, and review of the facility's policy titled Hazard Communication Program, the facility failed to ensure that one of 49 sampled residents (R) (R135) rooms was free from accident hazards. This deficient practice had the potential to place R135 at risk of avoidable accidents and to diminish its quality of life. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Hazard Communication Program revealed the Policy Statement section included, The purpose of the hazard communication program is to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals used in this facility have been classified and that the information concerning the hazard is communicated to employees. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R135 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified anxiety disorder and unspecified rheumatoid arthritis.Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) for R135, dated 11/24/2025, revealed Section C (Cognitive Patterns) documented a Brief…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-21 · 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, staff interviews, record review and review of the facility's policies titled Security of Medication Cart, Administering Medications and Storage of Medications, the facility failed to lock one of six medication carts, remove expired medication from one of two medication rooms and failed to place open dates on blood glucose strips in one of six medication carts. This deficient practice had the potential to place residents at increased risk of medical complications. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Security of Medication Cart, revised April 2007, documented Policy Interpretation and Implementation: When the medication cart is not being used, it must be locked and parked at the nurses' station or inside the medication room.Review of the facility's policy titled Administering Medications, undated, documented Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 12. The expiration/beyond use date on the medication label is checked prior to administering. When opening a multi-dose container, the date opened is recorded on the container.Review of 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 · D2025-12-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policies titled Infection Control and Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to implement infection control protocol by not practicing hand hygiene between glove changes. This deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk of infections due to cross-contamination. The facility census was 119. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Infection Control, revised December 2012, documented Purposes of Infection Control Programs: The major purposes of Infection Control Programs in the nursing facility are to minimize the effects of infections on residents and employees, and to educate the staff. A successful Infection Control Program requires an underlying commitment and facility-wide participation. It should not just be seen as a way to meet paperwork requirements but as a way to analyze and use information effectively to improve care and prevent problems.Review of the facility's policy titled Handwashing/Hand…
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 · D2023-05-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary environment related to dusty vent covers in four rooms on one hall, (rooms 112, 113, 114, and 115) with the potential to affect eight residents in these four rooms. Findings included: A policy for environmental services and cleaning was requested, but one was not provided. Observations during the initial tour and screening of residents on 5/2/2023, and subsequent observations on 5/3/2023 and 5/4/2023, revealed a build-up of dust on the ceiling vent covers in the bathroom of Room (Rm) 112, RM [ROOM NUMBER], RM [ROOM NUMBER], and RM [ROOM NUMBER] as follows: Observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 5/2/2023 at 10:27 a.m. and 5/3/2023 at 9:10 a.m. revealed a dusty vent in the bathroom. Observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 5/2/2023 at 10:37 a.m. and 5/3/2023 at 1:00 p.m. revealed a dusty vent in the bathroom. Observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 5/2/2023 at 10:42 a.m. and 5/3/2023 at 8:20 a.m. revealed a dusty vent in 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 before2023-05-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team, the facility failed to follow/develop the comprehensive care plan for two of eleven residents (R) (#18, #176) reviewed for oxygen therapy. Findings include: Review of the undated policy provided by the facility titled, Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team, policy interpretation and implementation revealed comprehensive, person-centered care plans are based on resident assessments and developed by an interdisciplinary team (IDT). 3. The IDT includes but is not limited to a. attending physician; b. registered nurse; c. nursing assistant; d. food and nutrition services staff; e. resident or resident's representative; f. other staff as appropriate. 1. Record review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) for R#18 dated 3/14/2023 revealed in section J-health conditions included shortness of breath (SOB), section O-special treatment, procedures, and programs included oxygen. Record review of the care plan R#18 revealed a goal and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-05-04 · 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
Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to follow the physician's order for one of eleven residents (R) (#18, #176) reviewed for receiving oxygen therapy. Findings include: Observations on 05/02/2023 at 01:22 p.m., 05/03/2023 at 01:44 p.m., and 05/04/2023 at 11:21 a.m. revealed R#176's nasal cannula was operating at the rate of 3LPM while no orders for oxygen were found in the medical record. Observation and interview 5/4/2023 at 2:27 p.m. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) AA confirmed the care plan did not reveal information involving respiratory care utilizing oxygen via nasal cannula at 3LPM. Record review of the most recent MAR & TAR for R#176 dated 5/4/2023 at 12:55 p.m. revealed no instructions for the administration of oxygen. LPN AA confirmed that R#176's oxygen was being delivered to R#176 at three LPM and did not have a physician's order for this medication. LPN AA reported that she had not checked her O2 settings. Interview on 5/4/2023 at 12:58 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON) revealed her expectation of nurses was to ensure…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRIGHTMOOR GRIFFIN HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/30/2021 |
| HOPLITE BRIGHTMOOR SENIORS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| HOPLITE CAPITAL STRATEGIES LLC - BRIGHTMOOR SERIES | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| BROWN, WILLIAM | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| DOHERTY, BRIAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| LYKOURETZOS, JOHN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| REESE, HOWARD | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| BRIGHTMOOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| ALVARADO, MELADY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| BRADSHAW, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2024 |
| HAMBY, SHAUNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/22/2024 |
| HARRIS, CARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/22/2024 |
| JONES, KIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/22/2023 |
| PARKER, BRENT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2021 |
| TRULOVE, JAIMIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| WEST, RANDALL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/15/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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 115556. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-21, 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.