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

Life Care Center of Gwinnett

3850 Safehaven Drive, Lawrenceville, GA 30044 · For profit - Corporation · 163 certified beds · (770) 923-0005 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (770) 923-0005 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

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
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 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 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
4030 Lawrenceville Hwy NW · (770) 921-4811 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
4004 Lawrenceville Hwy Nw · (770) 921-0228 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
3900 Lawrenceville Hwy NW · (770) 381-9215 · Call to confirm hours
Park
225 Bethesda Church Rd · (678) 277-0179 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
158 Lester Rd NW · (678) 462-8273

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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 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 held steady at 5 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 rating5★
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 increased8.7%15.3%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.6%5.6%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%0.9%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.8%2.5%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.8%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 injury0.8%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.4%15.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication21.2%20.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine90.8%95.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.7%5.6%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control9.2%15.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table14.4%19.9%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.0%2.6%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine45.7%78.4%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission21.6%25.0%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.9%11.6%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.172.151.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.661.901.80better

§ 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.

55.7% 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 125 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

55.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.6%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
88.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.39U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.18hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.13hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 88.6% 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 70 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 66% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF55.7%CMS range 48.4–63.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.6%CMS range 7.8–14.210.7%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 discharge88.6%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 discharge85.7%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 discharge84.3%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 identified94.0%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 stay0.8%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 worsened0.8%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 hospitalization5.3%CMS range 2.9–8.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.051.02Oct 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

0.61
RN hours/ resident / day
1.07
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.92
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.60
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.56
RN hoursweekends
44.0%
Total nursing turnover
25.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 163 beds and averages 83.7 residents a day — about 51% occupied, or roughly 79 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 0.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 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 3.25 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.74 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.56 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% 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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-04-10)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2023-09-14)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · F2026-06-18 · 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 policy titled, Food Safety, the facility failed to label, date, and discard expired food items in the refrigerator, freezer, and dry food storage. This deficient practice created the potential for 86 of 87 residents who received meals from the kitchen to contract food borne illnesses. Findings Include:A review of facility's policy titled, Food Safety, revised May 26, 2026, revealed under Policy: Food is stored and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner following federal, state, and local guidelines to minimize contamination and bacterial growth. The policy further states under Dry Storage: 2. Opened packages of food are sealed tightly to prevent contamination of the food item and use by date will be used when applicable. Under Procedure: 2. Pre-packaged food is placed in a leak-proof, non-absorbent, sanitary (NSF) container, with a tight-fitting lid. The container is labeled with the name of the contents and date (when the item is transferred to the new container). Use by Date is noted on the label 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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Indwelling Urinary Catheter (Foley) Management, the facility failed to provide the resident with appropriate catheter tubing management and securement for one of two residents (R) (R2) reviewed for catheter care. This deficient practice had the potential to cause urine backflow, bacterial infection, and excessive tension on the catheter, which could lead to urethral tears or catheter dislodgment. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Indwelling Urinary Catheter (Foley) Management, revised September 4, 2025, revealed under General Urinary Catheter Maintenance Guidelines: . 2. b. Keep the collecting bag below the level of the bladder at all times. Do not rest the drainage bag on the floor. Under Additional Care Practices Related To Catheterization: . 5. Keeping [sic] the catheter anchored to prevent excessive tension on the catheter, which can lead to urethral tears or dislodging 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-18 · tag F0694 — isolated
    Provide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Infusion Therapy-Intravenous (IV Fluids), the facility failed to properly date and initial one midline dressing for one of two residents (R) (R46) reviewed for IV therapy. This deficient practice had the potential to cause confusion about when to change the dressing next and to lead to infection. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infusion Therapy-Intravenous (IV Fluids), revised May 5, 2026, revealed under Procedure: .2. The facility will utilize the [NAME] (manual of Nursing Practice is a comprehensive, evidence-based guide for nursing students and practicing nurses, offering practical guidance across all major areas of patient care) procedures: . IV therapy.Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed resident R46 was admitted to the facility with pertinent diagnoses, including, but not limited to, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, dependence on supplemental…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-10 · tag F0655 — pattern
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Rails - Safe and Effective Use of Bed Rails, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan specific to the use of side rails for three of nine Residents (R) (R290, R14, and R287) reviewed for physical restraints. In addition, the facility failed to develop a baseline care that identified the use of an indwelling urinary catheter for one of one resident (R236) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter. The failure created the potential for the residents to have unmet care needs, safety needs, and to not meet their highest levels of functional abilities. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Rails - Safe and Effective Use of Bed Rails revised 9/6/2024 indicated, Procedure: A person-centered care plan will be developed within 48 hours of admission to address the bed rail(s), if indicated. The interdisciplinary team will review and revise the care plan, if indicated, upon completion 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 Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Rails - Safe and Effective Use of Bed Rails, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan specific to the use of side rails for six of nine Residents (R) (R58, R290, R14, R25, R48, and R52) reviewed for physical restraints. The failure created the potential for the residents to have unmet care needs, safety needs, and to not meet their highest levels of functional abilities. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Rails - Safe and Effective Use of Bed Rails revised 9/6/2024 indicated, Procedure: A person-centered care plan will be developed within 48 hours of admission to address the bed rail(s), if indicated. The interdisciplinary team will review and revise the care plan, if indicated, upon completion of the comprehensive, significant change and quarterly MDS for the need to continue the use of bed rail(s). 1. Review of the admission Record located under the Profile tab in the…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-10 · tag F0700 — pattern
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    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, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Rails - Safe and Effective Use of Bed Rails, the facility failed to complete initial and quarterly assessments for the use and safety of side rails for six of nine Residents (R) (R290, R14, R25, R48, R49, R287) reviewed for physical restraints. This failure had the potential for the residents to be injured or restrict movement of residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Rails - Safe and Effective Use of Bed Rails revised 9/6/2024 indicated, Assess the resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation. Procedure: Residents will be assessed upon admission, readmission, or upon initiation utilizing the Evaluation for use of bed rails assessment. If bed rails are determined to be appropriate for use with a resident, a reassessment of rail(s) use will be assessed at a minimum of quarterly and potentially with a change of condition utilizing the Evaluation for use of bed…

    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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean homelike environment for two of 14 rooms on the B Hall. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain clean air filters in the Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTACs) in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. In addition, room [ROOM NUMBER] contained a stained and broken blade on the window blind. The facility sample was 34 residents. Findings include: Observation of the B Hall on 9/11/2023 beginning at 5:00 pm revealed PTAC filters in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] that were covered in dust. In addition, the window blind in room [ROOM NUMBER] was stained and had a broken blade. Observation on the B Hall with the Housekeeping Supervisor (HS) on 9/13/2023 beginning at 3:25 pm, revealed the PTAC filters in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] remained covered in dust. Interview conducted during this time with the HS confirmed the PTAC filters were dusty and stated they should be cleaned at least monthly. He stated that was the responsibility of the Maintenance…

    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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    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, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), the facility failed to submit an application for a Level II PASARR for evaluation and determination of specialized services for one of three sampled residents (R) (R#30). The deficient practice increased the potential for R30 not to receive treatment and/or care according to the resident's needs. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) revised 10/6/2022 revealed: 4) A positive level I screen necessitates an in-depth evaluation of the individual by the state designated authority, known as PASARR Level II, which must be conducted prior to admission to a nursing facility. 13) Any resident with a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, Intellectual Disorder (ID) or a related condition must be referred, by the facility to the appropriate state designated mental health or intellectual disability…

    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 · Dcited before2023-09-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a care plan for a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder-chronic (PTSD), for one Resident (R) R62 of 25 sampled residents. The deficient practice increased the potential for R62 not to receive treatment and/or care according to the resident's needs. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions review date 8/22/2023 revealed the policy statement The facility will ensure the timeliness of each resident's person-centered, comprehensive care plan, and to ensure that the comprehensive care plan is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed or individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, and that each resident and resident representative, if applicable, is involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about his or her care. Procedure states: 1. The facility should monitor the resident over time to help identify changes in the…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-14 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policies titled, Administration of Medications, and Receipt of Interim/Stat/Emergency Deliveries the facility failed to maintain professional nursing standards of quality. Specifically, one (1) Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) and 1 Registered Nurse (RN) administered R#401 narcotic medication, using another resident's medication. The sample size was 34. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Administration of Medications, revised [DATE], under subtitle Procedure revealed: B. Staff who are responsible for mediation administration will adhere to the 10 Rights of Medication Administration. 2. Right Resident. Use two identifiers. Ask the resident his or her full name and compare it to the name on the medication or treatment administration record (MAR/TAR) and compare the resident's photo to the resident. Review of facility's policy titled Receipt of Interim/Stat/Emergency Deliveries revised [DATE], under subtitle Procedure revealed: 4.…

    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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, staff interviews and review of facility policy titled, 3.8 Psychotropic Medication Use the facility failed to limit as needed (PRN) psychotropic medications to no more than 14 days with documentation in the medical record for use after the 14-day time frame for one of five Residents (R) (R49) reviewed for unnecessary drugs. This failure had the potential to create unnecessary adverse side effects or adverse neurological effects. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, 3.8 Psychotropic Medication Use last revised October 24, 2022, under subsection, Procedures revealed: 8. PRN psychotropic medications should be ordered for no more than 14 days. Each resident who is taking a PRN psychotropic drug will have his or her prescription reviewed by the physician or prescribing practitioner every 14 days and by a pharmacist every month. 9. For psychotropic medications, excluding antipsychotics, that the attending physician believes a PRN order for longer than 14 days is appropriate, the physician can extend the prescription beyond 14 days for 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2026-06-18 · tag F0577 — widespread
    Allow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights, the facility failed to post notice of the availability of the State survey results so that facility residents (R), including four of 38 sampled R's (C1, C2, C3, C4) and/or visitors were aware of its location. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights, revised September 26, 2025, indicated under section, Procedure: .39. The resident has the right to examine the results of the most recent survey of the facility conducted by Federal or State surveyors and any plan of correction in effect with respect to the facility.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/01/2026, for C1, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating moderate cognitive decline.Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 05/28/2026, for C2, revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition.Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 04/17/2026, for C3, revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact…

    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 plan 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 LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 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 4 of 53.4+0.6 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.5+0.5 vs chain
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
1 of 5Garden Terrace At Overland ParkOverland Park, KS 1 of 5Hammond-Whiting Care CenterWhiting, IN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of AndoverAndover, KS 1 of 5Life Care Center Of Cape GirardeauCape Girardeau, MO 1 of 5Life Care Center Of GrayGray, TN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of HixsonHixson, TN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of Mount VernonMount Vernon, WA 1 of 5Life Care Center Of RenoReno, NV 1 of 5Life Care Center Of Sierra VistaSierra Vista, AZ 1 of 5Life Care Center Of The WillowsValparaiso, IN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of TucsonTucson, AZ 1 of 5Life Care Center of Coeur d'AleneCoeur d'Alene, ID 1 of 5Life Care Center of ElkhornElkhorn, NE 1 of 5Life Care Center of Hilton HeadHilton Head Island, SC 1 of 5Life Care Center of OmahaOmaha, NE 1 of 5Life Care Center of PlainwellPlainwell, MI 1 of 5Life Care Ctr Of LawrencevilleLawrenceville, GA 1 of 5Rensselaer Care CenterRensselaer, IN 2 of 5Canon Lodge Care CenterCanon City, CO 2 of 5Darcy Hall Of Life CareWest Palm Beach, FL 2 of 5Desert Cove Nursing CenterChandler, AZ 2 of 5Evergreen Nursing HomeAlamosa, CO 2 of 5Garden Terrace Healthcare Center of HoustonHouston, TX 2 of 5Hallmark ManorFederal Way, WA 2 of 5Lane House, TheCrawfordsville, IN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Altamonte SpringsAltamonte Springs, FL 2 of 5Life Care Center Of AthensAthens, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of BridgetonBridgeton, MO 2 of 5Life Care Center Of BrookfieldBrookfield, MO 2 of 5Life Care Center Of ClevelandCleveland, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of ColumbiaColumbia, SC 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Coos BayCoos Bay, OR 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Federal WayFederal Way, WA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of GrandviewGrandview, MO 2 of 5Life Care Center Of KirklandKirkland, WA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Merrimack ValleyBillerica, MA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Morgan CountyWartburg, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of PuyallupPuyallup, WA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Red BankChattanooga, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of South Las VegasLas Vegas, NV

Showing 40 of 193; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
PRESTON, FORRESTIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/06/1976
BLOOMER, VIRGINIAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/18/2022
CASON, CHRISTOPHERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/27/2025
SOLOMON, JENNIFERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/01/2019
FLETCHER, TODDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/01/2021
LAY, LISAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 02/09/2018
SWANKER, RICHARDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2022
ZIEGLER, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 08/16/1999
CROSS, CINDYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/21/1994
HENRY, TERRYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/16/1999
THURMOND, JOANIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/22/2000
LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/31/1991
JOSEPH, KIRPICHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/27/2025
PRESTON, AUBREYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 11/27/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 32 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$10.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+7.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.1M
Related-party expense11% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 64%Medicare 8%Other / private 28%

This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$286per resident / day
operating cost
$8,695per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$310per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in GA

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 115347. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-10, 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