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

Peachtree Nursing And Rehabilitation LLC

200 Medical Drive, Lagrange, GA 30240 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 150 certified beds · (706) 845-3256 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (706) 845-3256 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Nov 2025
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • 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
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2025
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed

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.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★★ 5/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
300 Medical Dr · (706) 880-7320 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
2200 Vernon St. · (706) 443-7765 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Publix0.2 mi
2200 Vernon Ferry Rd · (706) 443-7764 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Lagrange College Football Field · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 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 increased8.6%15.3%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.0%5.6%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.4%0.9%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.2%2.5%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms5.9%11.3%6.5%typical
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.1%3.2%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened7.0%15.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication26.9%20.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.3%95.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.0%5.6%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control13.7%15.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table26.3%19.9%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.7%2.6%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine58.5%78.4%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission27.2%25.0%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.5%11.6%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.802.151.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.161.901.80better

§ 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.

52.5% 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 193 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

52.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
65.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.14U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.08hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 65.4% 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 81 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 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 10% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 31% 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 SNF52.5%CMS range 46.3–59.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.8%CMS range 8.3–13.910.7%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 discharge65.4%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 discharge55.6%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 discharge53.1%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 identified80.3%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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay1.4%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 worsened2.7%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 hospitalization6.1%CMS range 3.6–9.37.1%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

0.36
RN hours/ resident / day
1.14
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.10
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.60
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.43
RN hoursweekends
46.0%
Total nursing turnover
27.8%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 150 beds and averages 142.1 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.60 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.10 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.81 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.33 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-11-21)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2024-07-25)

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.

9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-11-21 · 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, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to keep track of when to discard refrigerated food items through labeling and dating the items. This failure had the potential to negatively impact (through foodborne illness) 139 residents residing at the facility by exposing them to food items that may have spoiled.Findings include:An observation on 11/18/25 at 8:50 AM, during the Flash Tour. completed with the Director of Food and Nutrition Service (DFNS), of the kitchen revealed numerous food items located in the reach in refrigerators were not labeled or dated. The food items were as followed: cooked chicken breasts in a steam table pan, sliced ham covered by plastic wrap, opened packets of hot dogs, roast beef, fresh and cooked yellow squash located in a partially filled steam table pan, fresh broccoli, sliced cheese wrapped in plastic wrap, pork chops located in a partially filled steam table pan, raw fish located in a steam table pan, raw chicken breast located in a steam table pan, raw hamburger wrapped in plastic wrap, a container of ranch dressing,…

    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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders for code status matched the residents' Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) and wishes for two of four residents (Resident (R) 57 and R49) reviewed for advance directives out of 29 sampled residents. This failure increased the likelihood of causing severe harm or death if CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) was performed or withheld against a resident's wishes.Findings include:1. Review of the admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and returned from a hospital stay on [DATE]. R57 had diagnoses which included cerebral infarction (stroke) and sepsis (a life-threatening condition where the body's response to an infection damages its own tissues and organs).Review of the Care Plan, tab of the EMR revealed an intervention, revised on [DATE], under the focus area cognitive loss/decision making poor…

    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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect 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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse and neglect for one of four residents (Resident (R) 49) reviewed for abuse and neglect out of 29 sampled residents. The facility neglected the resident when Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 1 removed the call light out of the resident's reach. CNA 1 intimidated R49 when she stood over her and told the resident not to use the call light again. These failures had the potential to cause unmet care needs. Findings include:Review of R49's undated admission Record, located in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic respiratory failure, Reiter's disease, and cervicalgia. Review of R49's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/29/25 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed R49 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure abuse and neglect by staff was reported timely to the Director of Nursing (DON) and to the State Survey Agency (SSA) when a resident's call light was placed out of reach, and told not to use the call light anymore by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 for one of four residents (Resident (R) 49) reviewed for neglect out of 29 sampled residents. Findings include:Review of R49's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/29/25, located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact.Review of R49's Nursing Progress Note, dated 10/30/25, located in the EMR under the Prog Notes tab, revealed Spoke with resident's daughter concerning agency staff removing call light out of residents reach. Daughter was notified that agency staff will not be returning to building. Daughter said thank you and expressed no other concerns.Review of a Facility Incident Report Form, dated 10/30/25…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
    Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
    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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure another method to call for assistance was provided when a resident's call light malfunctioned and was removed from the resident's wall for one of four residents (Resident (R) 157) reviewed for call lights out of 29 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to result in residents' care needs not being met by nursing staff. Findings include:Review of R157's undated admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebrovascular accident (CVA), hemiplegia following CVA, and mild protein calorie malnutrition. R157 expired in the facility on [DATE]. Review of R157's change in condition Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact.Review of a Facility…

    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 before2024-07-25 · 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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food items in the kitchen cooler were properly stored and labeled with open or discard dates, failed to dispose of expired foods in a resident nourishment pantry, and failed to ensure an ice maker was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. The deficient practices placed the 106 residents (R) who consumed an oral diet from the kitchen at risk for avoidable foodborne illness. Findings include: The Food Safety policy was requested and was not provided. Observations of the kitchen cooler on 7/23/2024 at 9:15 am revealed the following: One industrial-size cooking sheet containing seasoned chicken was covered with plastic wrap with a light orange substance on the wrap without a label indicating a stored or discard date. Trays of bacon without a label indicating a stored or discard date. Opened condiments, including a wing sauce/glaze, strawberry topping, and salad dressing, without a label indicating a stored or discard date. A pan of green beans without a label indicating a stored or discard date. A pan of…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-25 · 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 observation, staff interviews, and a review of the facility policy titled Quality of Care and Quality of Life-Accommodation of Needs, the facility failed to provide dining assistance to one of 13 residents (R) (R38) selected for dining observation. The deficient practice placed R38 at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Quality of Care and Quality of Life-Accommodation of Needs, dated July 8, 2021, revealed the Policy was To define a process to accommodate individual needs and preferences to the extent possible for residents to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being consistent with residents' assessment and plan of care. The Definitions section included ADLs [Activities of Daily Living]: . Dining, including eating meals and snacks. The Procedure section included Staff Attitudes and Behaviors: 3.1 Accommodate individual needs and preferences; staff attitudes and behaviors…

    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 · D2024-07-25 · 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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide an environment free from chemical hazards for one of four residents (R) (R91) reviewed for accident hazards. This deficient practice placed R91 at risk for avoidable chemical incidents, injuries, and a diminished quality of life. Findings include: A policy was requested and was not provided. A review of R91's clinical record revealed diagnoses including, but not limited to, unspecified dementia and cognitive communication deficit. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed section C (Cognitive Patterns) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 4 (indicating severe cognitive impairment) and section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) documented R91 required supervision with ambulation. A review of the care plan revised on 7/17/2024 revealed a focus area of cognitive losses, resident with memory deficit related to diagnosis of dementia. An observation on 7/23/2024 at 11:37 am revealed R91 lying 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-12-15 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Advance Directive, the facility failed to update the care plan for one of five sampled Residents (R#17) related to code status. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled Advance Directive with a revision date of [DATE], revealed under the change in condition, 3.3, initiate a new life-sustaining treatment (RPLST) form and update the care plan to reflect changes, or if no changes have been made, to document the date of review and discussion; Care Plan Review 4.1; all residents will be reviewed at care plan for advance directive and/or RPLST; 4.2 existing RPLST will be reviewed. If there is no change, sign, and date the RPLST form. Record review for R#17 revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included but was not limited to encephalopathy, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the presence of a cardiac pacemaker, and vascular dementia. Record review of the care plan for…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning 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 3 of 52.7+0.3 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.2+0.8 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.9-0.9 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.0≈ chain avg
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
PEACH 2 GA 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; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
200 PEACHTREE GA 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
BOU ALWAN, MELHIMIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025
RAMEY, DONNAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 29 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.

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 115277. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-21, 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.

What to do next