No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Green Acres Care Center LLC

1400 Hogansville Road, Lagrange, GA 30240 · For profit - Individual · 116 certified beds · (706) 803-7390 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (706) 803-7390 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Resident-funds citation (F0568)1 actual-harm citation
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (66%) runs well above the national median (45%)

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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★★ 5/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1075 Lafayette Pkwy · (706) 443-5273 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1597 Hogansville Rd · (706) 242-4902 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
908 Hogansville Rd · (706) 883-7520 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1210 Hogansville Rd · (706) 883-1688 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
106 N Barnard Ave

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 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased6.5%15.3%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.6%5.6%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.9%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.3%2.5%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.6%11.3%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.2%3.2%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.6%15.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.9%20.5%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.8%95.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.9%5.6%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control30.3%15.8%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table21.3%19.9%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.9%2.6%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine72.2%78.4%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission31.9%25.0%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit8.9%11.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.032.151.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.221.901.80worse

§ 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.

43.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

43.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
51.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.17U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.09hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
<0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 51.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 33 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 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF43.5%CMS range 31.7–56.651.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.0%CMS range 8.1–18.610.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge51.5%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge60.6%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge27.3%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified95.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay2.1%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened2.1%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.5%CMS range 3.0–11.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.701.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.62
RN hours/ resident / day
0.81
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.10
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.53
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.42
RN hoursweekends
65.5%
Total nursing turnover
27.8%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 116 beds and averages 98.8 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 17 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 3.53 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.10 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.77 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.70 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 66% is well above the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

9
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-26)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2025-05-08)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2026-01-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 observation, staff interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Fall Prevention Program, the facility failed to provide an environment free from accident hazards for one of three Residents (R) (R1) reviewed for accidents. On 11/18/2025, actual harm occurred when R1 attempted to use her bathroom, which was under renovation, and her sock became stuck to the glue on the bathroom floor, resulting in an unwitnessed fall. R1 sustained a right humerus shaft fracture, right open distal femur fracture, and a hematoma over the right inferior frontal scalp. R1 was hospitalized on [DATE] and underwent an operative fixation (a surgical repair for broken bones) on 11/20/2025 as a result of the fall.Findings include:Review of a facility's policy titled, Fall Prevention Program, with an implemented date of 1/8/2025 revealed, Each resident will be assessed for fall risk and will receive care and services in accordance with their individualized level of risk to minimize the likelihood of falls.…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-04-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 a review of the facility's records, and facility's policies titled Date Marking for Food Safety, and Sanitation Inspection, the facility failed to discard expired food items and failed to properly label and date. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain sanitary practice with ice machine. The deficient practices had the potential to place 101 of 102 residents who received an oral diet from the kitchen at risk of contracting a foodborne illness. Findings Include:Review of facility's policy titled, Date Marking for Food Safety review dated 01/08/2026, documented in Policy Explanation and Compliance Guideline for Staffing 3.The individual opening or preparing a food shall be responsible for date marking the food at the time the food is opened or prepared. 4. The marking system shall consist of a color-coded label, the day/date of opening, and the day/date the item must be consumed or discarded. Review of facility's policy titled, Sanitation Inspection dated 01/08/2026, documented in Policy Explanation and Compliance Guideline 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-26 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    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 review of the facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity the facility failed to protect and value one resident (R88) of 39 sampled resident private space. Specifically, staff failing to ensure knocking on R88 bedroom door before entering. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity with a revision date of 01/08/2026 stated under the Policy section, it is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity as well as care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that maintains or enhances resident's quality of like by recognizing each resident's individually. Under the section Compliance Guidance (1) all staff members are involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity and respect residents' rights and (12) maintain resident privacy. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS)…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-26 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow 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, resident and staff interviews, record review and review of the facility's policy titled Resident Self-Administration of Medication, the facility failed to remove medications from the bedside of one of 39 sampled residents (R35) for self-administration of medications. This deficient practice had the potential to cause medication overdose and worsening of R35's medical condition.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Self-Administration of Medication reviewed 01/08/2026 documented Policy: It is the policy of this facility to support each resident's right to self-administer medication. A resident may only self-administer medications after the facility's interdisciplinary team has determined which medications may be self-administered safely. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 7. Bedside medication storage is permitted only when it does not present a risk to confused residents who wander into the other resident's rooms or to confused roommates 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-26 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review and review of the facility's policy titled Preventative Maintenance Program, the facility failed to ensure call device was within reach of one of 39 residents (R) R53 and failed to ensure proper accommodation of wheelchair device for R70. This deficient practice had the potential to cause delayed care and injury to the residents.Findings include: Review of R70 clinical record revealed that he was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses included but not limited to cervical disc dsorder with dadiculopathy. The R70s most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was coded as 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. Review of the Care Plan date 02/26/2024 revealed in Focus the resident has had a fall. Goals the resident will not sustain serious injury through the review date. Intervention Therapy to evaluate resident for a new wheelchair. Date Initiated: 01/26/2025 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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 staff interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plan the facility failed to ensure one of 39 sampled residents (R) (R52) care plan was revised in a timely manner related to her code status. Findings include: Review of the facility policy title, Comprehensive Care Plan with a revision date of 01/08/2026 stated it is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident's rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and all services that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment and meet professional standards of quality. Under the section Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines (5) the comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessment. Review of R54 profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R54 is documented as a do not resuscitate…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations, interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration the facility failed to obtain a physician's orders for oxygen therapy for one resident (R) (R103) of 13 residents receiving oxygen therapy.Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration with a revision date of 01/08/2026 documented in the section Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Oxygen is administered under orders of a physician, except in the case of an emergency. R103 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses not limited to chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed R104 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating cognition was intact. Further review of the MDS in section (O) documented resident is receiving oxygen therapy. Review of the care plan documented R103 required oxygen therapy and to give medications as ordered by physician. Review of the Physician's…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to remove one pair of scissors from the bedside of one of 39 sampled residents (R) (R35). This deficient practice had the potential to cause injury to residents.Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to remove one pair of scissors from the bedside of one of 39 sampled residents (R35). This deficient practice had the potential to cause injury to residents.Findings include:Requests were made for the facility's policy regarding accident hazards however, none was provided. Review of the facility's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) revealed R35 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis included but not limited to cirrhosis of the liver.Review of the Medicare 05-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] Section C (Cognition) Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated R35 had intact cognition, Section I…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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, and review of facility policy titled, Medication Storage, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured on one (cart 3) of four medication carts reviewed and failed to ensure two of four medication (medication cart 1 and 2) carts were locked and secure.Review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage with a revised date of 01/08/2026 stated under Policy, it is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the pharmacy and/or medication rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, lights, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines (1) General Guidelines (a) all drugs and biologicals will be stored in locked compartments (i.e, medication carts, cabinets, drawers, refrigerators, medication rooms) under proper temperature control. During an observation and interview on 04/24/2026 at 09:10 AM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and Registered…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-26 · tag F0914 — isolated
    Provide bedrooms that don't allow residents to see each other when privacy is needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity the facility failed to ensure a privacy curtain for one of 4 residents (R) (R49) in room [ROOM NUMBER] bed-A. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity with a revision date of 01/08/2026 stated under the Policy section, it is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity as well as care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that maintains or enhances resident's quality of like by recognizing each resident's individually. Under the section Compliance Guidance (1) all staff members are involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity and respect residents' rights. A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that R49 had a Brief Minimum Data Set (BIMS) score of 3, indicating severe…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-05-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 policies titled Food Storage Areas and Food from Family Members, the facility failed to ensure food items were labeled, dated, and securely wrapped in the kitchen storage areas and in two of two resident pantries. In addition, the facility failed to ensure that staff food items were stored separately from resident food items. These failures had the potential to place the 89 residents who consumed food from the kitchen at risk of foodborne illness. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Storage Areas, dated 4/20/2024, indicated, It is the intent of this center to store food in a manner that maintains quality and safety. First in, first out should be followed with Refrigerator Food codes, and internal tools may be used as a reference for proper dating. Review of the facility's policy titled, Food from Family Members, dated 3/20/2024, indicated, It is the intent of this center to store food in a manner that maintains quality and safety. First in, first out should be followed with Refrigerator…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0568 — isolated
    Properly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, review of facility documents, and review of the facility policy titled, Management of Residents' Personal Funds, the facility failed to provide written quarterly statements within 30 days of the end of the quarter to one of 43 residents (R) (R78) and/or the resident representative to inform them of the residents' balance in their personal funds account. This failure had the potential to cause R78 and/or the resident representative to be uninformed of the balance in their account. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Management of Residents' Personal Funds, revealed, Policy Statement: Our facility manages the personal funds of residents who request the facility do so. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: . 3. Should the facility manage the resident's funds, the facility acts as a fiduciary of the resident funds and holds, safeguards, manages and accounts for the personal funds of the resident . 4. Should our facility be appointed the resident's representative payee, and directly receive monthly…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Admission, Transfer, and Discharge, the facility failed to provide a written notification of transfer to the hospital to the resident and resident representative for one resident (R) (R26) reviewed for hospital transfer. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the resident and their representative by not having the knowledge of where and why a resident was transferred and/or how to appeal the transfer, if desired. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled Admission, Transfer, and Discharge revealed that the policy did not provide guidance related to providing the written notification of transfer to the resident and the resident representative. Review of R26's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/30/2025, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating R26 was cognitively intact. Review of R26's EMR located under the Census tab revealed that R26…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to THE ROSENBERG FAMILY — 16 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 52.7-0.7 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.2-0.2 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 53.9+0.1 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 54.0-1.0 vs chain
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
GREEN ACRES 2 LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
AZ 22 TROrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
ZA 22OrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
ROSENBERG, AVRAHAMIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
ROSENBERG, ZVIIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
1400 LAGRANGE LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
ROSENBERG, JONATHANIndividual5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
ROSENBERG, MOSHEIndividual5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
SHEPHERD, ALEXIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
BOU ALWAN, MELHIMIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$294.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+1.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 86%Medicare 1%Other / private 13%

About 86% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.

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.

What families pay in GA

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Georgia
$8,821/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,429/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,300/mo
Assisted living

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 115709. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-26, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next