Life Care Ctr Of Lawrenceville
210 Collins Industrial Way, Lawrenceville, GA 30045 · For profit - Corporation · 125 certified beds · (678) 442-0777 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.0% | 15.3% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 21.4% | 11.3% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.3% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.6% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.1% | 20.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.6% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.8% | 15.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.5% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 2.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.3% | 78.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.3% | 25.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.31 | 2.15 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 1.90 | 1.80 | typical |
§ 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.
67.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 399 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 84.8% 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 118 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 0.87 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 67.7%CMS range 62.0–71.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.2%CMS range 10.3–16.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 84.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 88.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 72.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.7% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.6%CMS range 4.4–9.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 125 beds and averages 84.5 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 40 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 4.24 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.34 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 3.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.49 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below 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
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2023-08-17 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel (HCP) During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, and review of the job description for the Executive Director (ED), facility Administration failed to ensure the health and safety of the residents by not maintaining an effective Infection Prevention Control Program (IPCP) that would identify and investigate an infection outbreak to prevent or reduce the spread of Covid-19 by not following current guidelines for resident and staff testing (contact tracing or broad based testing). This failure resulted in a total of 28 residents and eight staff members tested positive for COVID-19, three COVID related hospitalizations, and one COVID related death. The census was 99. On August 15, 2023, a determination was made that a situation in which the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused or had the likelihood to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Lcited before2023-08-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel (HCP) During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, and review of the facility policies, the facility failed to implement initial and ongoing testing of residents and staff as recommended by Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) to lessen the exposure of Covid-19 during an outbreak and failed to obtain Physician's Orders for Covid-19 testing for 21 of 28 residents (R#'s 59, 2, 114, 80, 322, 113, 46, 112, 74, 13, 27, 324, 222, 51, 469, 323, 119, 10, 58, 120, and 21) reviewed that were positive for Covid-19. In addition, the facility failed to maintain documentation of negative test results of residents and staff. On [DATE], a determination was made that a situation in which the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation had…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2023-08-17 · tag F0882 — widespreadDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
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 Registered Nurse (RN) Infection Preventionist (IP) job description, the facility failed to ensure that the person in the role of (IP) adequately assessed, developed, implemented, monitored, and managed the Infection Control and Prevention (IPCP) program, to prevent and control the spread of infections. Specifically, a Covid-19 outbreak began on August 2, 2023, and the facility's failure to implement the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Georgia Department of Public Health's (GDPH) recommended practices for contact tracing or broad-based testing, resulted in 28 residents and eight staff members testing positive, three Covid-19 related hospitalizations, and one Covid related death during this outbreak of Covid-19. The census was 99. On August 15, 2023, a determination was made that a situation in which the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused or had the likelihood to cause serious injury, harm,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2026-03-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Food Safety and Sanitation, the facility failed to ensure food safety protocols and maintain sanitary conditions for the ice machine, the disposal of expired and opened food in the walk-in refrigerator freezer, and failed to properly label or date food in the dry storage and walk in freezer. The deficient practices had the potential to place 84 residents who received an oral diet from the kitchen at risk of contracting a foodborne illness. Findings Include:Review of the facility's policy titled Food Safety and Sanitation reviewed dated 05/01/2025, documented in Procedure . 2. Pre-packaged food is placed in a leak-proof, pest proof, non-absorbent, sanitary (NSF-National Sanitation Foundation certification) container with a tight-fitting lid. The container is labeled with the name of the contents and date (when the item is transferred to new container). Use by Date is noted on the label or product when applicable. Documented in Food Service/Meal Service .12c. Ice machines must be of a type that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-29 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review and review of the facility's policy titled, Certification of Accuracy of the (Minimum Data Set) MDS, the facility failed to ensure the MDS accurately reflected the status of one of one sampled resident (R) (R28) reviewed for hospice.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Certification of Accuracy of the MDS reviewed 08/29/2025 documented under Definitions: Accuracy of Assessment - means that the appropriate, health professionals correctly document the resident's medical, functional, and psychosocial problems and identify resident strengths to maintain or improve medical status, functional abilities, and psychosocial status using the appropriate Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) (e.g. comprehensive, quarterly, significant change in status).Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis including but not limited to protein calorie malnutrition.Review of the Admissions MDS dated [DATE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-29 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, staff interviews and review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration (Infection Control, Safety, and Storage), the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice by ensuring humidification was provided and the oxygen concentrator and filter were clean for one of 20 residents (R) (R81) receiving oxygen (O2) or respiratory therapy. The deficient practice increased the risk of infection for R81. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration (Infection Control, Safety, and Storage) revised date 03/03/2026, revealed in section Infection Control 1. Change oxygen supplies (e.g. cannula, tubing, humidifier) weekly and when visibly soiled. Equipment should be labeled with resident name and dated when setup or changed out.4b. External filters should be checked daily and all dust should be removed. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) for R81 revealed she was admitted to the facility with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-30 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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 record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policies titled, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Policy and Advance Directives and Advance Care Planning, the facility failed to communicate and ensure preference for the change in code status from full code to do not resuscitate (DNR) was updated in the medical record for one of three sampled residents (R) (R1). The deficient practice had the potential to deny the residents and/or representatives the opportunity to direct health care in the event that they were to become unable to make decisions or communicate health care preferences. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Policy last revision date of [DATE] documented under Definitions: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Order – refers to a medical order issued by a physician or other authorized non-physician practitioner that directs healthcare providers not to administer CPR in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest. Existence…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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, staff interviews, record review and review the facility document titled, [Name of Company] TELS (The Equipment Lifecycle System): Instructions, the facility failed to keep the residents free of accident hazards as evidenced by water temperatures above 110 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in four out of 68 resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER]). The deficient practices had the potential to cause injury to residents residing in these rooms. Findings include: Review of the facility document titled, [Name of Company] TELS: Instructions, under the section titled Steps revealed, 1. For burn prevention, federal guidelines advise that you keep domestic water temperatures below 120 degrees Fahrenheit, although this temperature can still cause burns if exposure reaches five minutes. Many states have even stricter standards that set maximum temperatures lower than 120 degrees Fahrenheit, although 100 degrees Fahrenheit is considered a safe water…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, review of the facility's policies titled Oxygen Administration (Safety, Storage, Maintenance), Cleaning and Disinfection of Non-Critical Patient Care Equipment, and Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions for storing respiratory supplies for one of 19 residents that received respiratory treatments. In addition, the facility failed to sanitize shared medical equipment between residents' use during two of four medication pass observations and follow proper hand hygiene practices when providing residents' care during one of four medication pass observation. The deficient practices increased the risk to spread infection, equipment contamination, and other health complications. The sample size was 24 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration (Safety, Storage, Maintenance) revised on 10/11/2024 revealed the Policy section included 4: Store oxygen and respiratory supplies in bag labeled with resident's name when not in use. Review of the facility's policy titled Hand Hygiene revised…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), the facility failed to ensure that one of one resident (R) (R13) reviewed for PASARR was evaluated by the state designated authority for a PASARR Level II. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the appropriate level of care and services provided for R13. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), with dated 9/26/2024 under Policy revealed, The facility will ensure that potential admissions are to be screened for possible serious mental disorders or intellectual disabilities and related conditions. This initial pre-screening is referred to as PASARR Level I and is completed prior to admission to a nursing facility. A negative Level I screen permits admission to proceed and ends the PASARR process unless a possible serious mental disorder or intellectual disability arises later. A positive Level…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions, the facility failed to develop a person-centered, comprehensive care plan related to providing oxygen therapy as ordered for one of 19 Residents (R) (R41) reviewed for oxygen administration. The deficient practice had the potential to place the resident at risk for medical complications, unmet needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions, dated 9/11/2024 under the section Policy revealed, 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 of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs . Review of the clinical electronic record for R41 revealed, diagnoses that included but not limited to acute and chronic respiratory failure, unspecified whether with hypoxia or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-30 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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, Oxygen Administration (Safety, Storage, Maintenance),the facility failed to ensure that one out of 19 residents (R) R41 receiving oxygen therapy was administered the therapy in accordance with the physician orders. This deficient practice had the potential to put R41 at risk for medical complications, respiratory depression, and potentially life-threatening complications. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration (Safety, Storage, Maintenance), dated 10/11/2024, under the section Procedure - Oxygen Administration, outlines the following procedures: 1. Oxygen order should be written for specific liter flow required by the resident. Review of the clinical electronic record for R41 revealed, she was admitted with diagnoses that included but not limited to acute and chronic respiratory failure, unspecified whether with hypoxia or hypercapnia, hypertensive heart and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-17 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate comprehensive assessment for dental status for one of 62 sampled residents (R) (R#26). Findings included: Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that R#26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnose including but not limited to hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, dementia, bipolar disorder, diabetes, Bell's Palsy, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, oral phase dysphagia, need for assistance with personal care, and anxiety disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] and a review of the Quarterly MDS assessment of 5/8/2023 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section L revealed no dental concerns (obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth was not checked). Continued review of the EMR revealed that there were no dental assessments from a dental…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-17 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, and review of the policy titled Wound Care Management Program, the facility failed to ensure care was provided in accordance with professional standards of practice related to maintaining skin integrity under geri-sleeves and clean geri-sleeves and boot heel protector for one resident (R) (R#23). The sample size was 63 Residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy Wound Care Management Program reviewed 3/3/2023 revealed the skin care program is interdisciplinary and implemented using a team approach. Members of the team include the following: Nursing (nursing and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA), Rehab, the resident, the resident's physician, and or the Medical Director, Registered Dietician, Others as deemed appropriate. Communication is vital and should occur daily at the stand-up meeting, and in Grand Grounds, then weekly at the Resident at Risk (RAR) meeting, and monthly at the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-17 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration/Safety/Storage/Maintenance, the facility failed to follow Physician Orders for one resident (R) (R#35) to change Oxygen tubing, nebulizer circuit, and to clean concentrator filter weekly for one of eight residents (R) (R#35) receiving respiratory care. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Oxygen Administration/Safety/Storage/Maintenance revised 8/2/2021, revealed the policy was that oxygen will be administered in accordance with physician orders and current standards of practice. Infection Control number 1. Change oxygen supplies weekly and when visibly soiled. Equipment should be dated when setup or changed out. 3. Store oxygen and respiratory supplies in bag labeled with residents' name when not in use. 4. Clean exterior of concentrator weekly with an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered hospital disinfectant. b. External filter should be checked daily, and all dust should be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 3.4 | -2.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HARPER, TRAVIS | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 03/01/2021 |
| CROSS, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/04/1995 |
| THURMOND, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/21/2000 |
| LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/03/1995 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in GA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Georgia Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 115659. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-29, 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.