PruittHealth - Lithonia, LLC
2816 Evans Mill Road, Lithonia, GA 30058 · Non profit - Corporation · 150 certified beds · (770) 482-2961 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 22% 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 25.7% | 15.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 5.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.1% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 11.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.5% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.6% | 15.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.8% | 20.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.9% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.6% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.7% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.2% | 19.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 73.7% | 78.4% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.7% | 25.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.4% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.12 | 2.15 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.58 | 1.90 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.9%CMS range 7.6–17.5 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.2% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.82 | 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 150 beds and averages 142.5 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.54 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.61 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.78 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.85 on weekdays — 28% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, record review and review of the facility's policies titled, Foodborne Illness and Labeling, Dating, and Storage facility failed to adequately uphold food safety practices, which could lead to potential foodborne illnesses. Opened food products in the walk-in refrigerator were not appropriately labeled, dated, and discarded. The deficient practices had the potential to place 135 residents who received an oral diet from the kitchen at risk of contracting a foodborne illness. Findings Include:Review of facility's policy titled, Foodborne Illnesses reviewed dated 01/8/2021, revealed in Procedure 2. Foods will be used before the expiration date, use by date, and sell by date, indicated on the food item. Foods not used prior to the expiration date, use by date, best by date, or sell by date must be discarded. 3. It is the responsibility of the Dietary Manager to see that dietary employees practice safe and sanitary methods when preparing foods to prevent cross contamination 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 · F2026-03-19 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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, Waste Disposal: Dietary Services, the facility failed to ensure the outdoor garbage and refuse area was free of litter by being maintained in a sanitary manner. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Waste Disposal: Dietary Services reviewed dated 10/20/2025 revealed under Procedure: 6. Dumpster lids, doors, and plugs should be kept closed at all times. 7. Dumpster and surrounding areas should be kept clean and free of debris. During the initial observation of the dumpster on 03/18/2026 at 11:58 AM the Dietary Manager (DM)PP confirmed the presence of two dumpsters. The dumpster adjacent to the brick wall; left door was observed to be completely open, overflowing with clear trash bags protruding from the left door. Observation indicated the presence of one compressed empty box, purple gloves, remnants of straws, and several white surgical face masks surrounding the two dumpsters. Interview on 03/18/2026, at 11:59 AM was conducted with the DM PP, who acknowledged the presence of trash 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 · D2026-03-19 · 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's policy titled Oxygen Administration, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner by not cleaning the oxygen concentrator filter for one resident (R) (R69) out of 12 residents on respiratory care. This deficient practice had the potential to cause ineffective oxygen delivery, respiratory complications, and increased risk of infection.Findings include:Record review of facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration, reviewed on 11/17/2025, revealed the Policy Statement included, It is the policy of [NAME] Health Hospice and Healthcare Centers/Veterans Homes to provide oxygen safely and accurately to appropriate patients/residents. The policy further revealed The large external, black filter should be washed with soap and water once each week and PRN [as needed]. Dry with towel and reinsert. Clean exterior of concentrators weekly and between each patient/resident use 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 · D2026-03-19 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage in Healthcare Centers, the facility failed to ensure that medications and biologicals were stored securely on one of eight hallways. This deficient practice had the potential to place the residents and staff at risk of having unauthorized access to medications. Findings include:A review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage in Health Care Centers, revised March 12, 2026, revealed that medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly following the manufacturer's recommendation or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, certified medication aides, and pharmacy personnel. Observation on 03/18/2026 at 6:10 AM revealed that a medication cart on the G Hall Corridor was unlocked, unattended, and out of direct sight of a nurse. Observation revealed the cart remained unlocked and unattended for three to five minutes. In an interview on 03/18/2026 at 6:15 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) DD confirmed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-12 · 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 observation, interview, and review of the policy titled Food Temperatures the facility failed to ensure that the temperature for cold food (orange juice) was maintained at a temperature of 41 degrees ( ) Fahrenheit (F) or less; This deficient practice had the potential to promote the growth of pathogens that cause foodborne illness. This had the potential to effect 134 of the 141 residents receiving an oral diet.Findings include: Review of the policy titled Food Temperatures revised date of 10/21/2025. Policy: It is the policy of __ that the Dietary Manager or designee be responsible for ensuring that all food has reached and continues to maintain proper temperature prior to tray assembly. Procedure: 2. All potentially hazardous cold foods must be held at 41 degrees or less. 12. Potentially hazardous cold food should be held on the line in an ice bath at 41 degrees or below. Cold foods should not be set up on meal trays longer than 15 minutes prior to meal service and must be kept on ice or chilled during tray line/meal service. An observation on 03/5/2026 at 7:29 am 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-09-05 · 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 observation, staff interview, and review of the facility's policies titled, Skilled Nursing Services Storage Areas and Skilled Nursing Services Cleaning and Sanitizing, the facility failed to ensure opened food items in the dry storage and the walk-in refrigerator area were securely wrapped, labeled, dated, and discarded by the expiration date. In addition, the facility failed to maintain sanitary cleanliness of the ice maker and prevent wet nesting by ensuring clean pots, pans and baking trays were properly stacked and stored to dry. The facility census was 147 residents. Findings Include: Review of facility's policy titled, Skilled Nursing Services Storage Areas dated 12/29/2023 under the section titled Guidelines revealed, items should be covered, sealed, labeled, and dated appropriately. Under the subsection titled, Ice machines, revealed, ice chest should be cleaned on a routine basis and as needed. Review of facility's policy titled Skilled Nursing Services Cleaning and Sanitizing, dated 12/29/2023 under the section titled Guidelines revealed, All small ware equipment…
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 · D2024-09-05 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Bedside Storage of Medications, the facility failed to assess one of eight residents (R) (R88) for self-administration of medication and failed to maintain medication in a secure location for one of three residents (R43). The deficient practice had the potential to allow unauthorized access to unsecured medications to residents and visitors at the facility. Findings Include: 1. A review of the undated facility policy titled, Bedside Storage of Medications revealed under section titled Intent, To support self-administration of medication by appropriate patients within the nursing center while facilitating medication security. Under section titled GUIDELINE revealed, The Pharmacy supports bedside medication storage for patients who are able to self-administer medications upon the written order of the prescriber and when it is deemed appropriate in the judgment of the nursing center's interdisciplinary patient…
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 · D2024-09-05 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR 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 and resident interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Best Practice for PASRR, the facility failed to screen one of five residents (R) R43 for Pre-admission Screening and Record Review (PASRR) level two. The deficient practice had the potential to cause R43 not to receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to her needs. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Best Practice for PASRR documented There are two areas a person can be a PASRR patient: Significant Mental Illness (SMI) or Intellectual Disability/Developmental Disability (ID/DD) To be included in the PASARR population, a patient must have a SMI, or an ID/DD as determined on their level two assessment. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R43 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis that included but not limited to paranoid schizophrenia. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented in Section C…
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 · D2024-09-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the policy titled, Cleaning of Shared Equipment, the facility failed to clean and disinfect a shared blood pressure cuff before and after use between residents. The deficient practice had the potential to increase the probability of cross transmission of bacteria that could cause infections for residents that the equipment was utilized for. Findings: Review of the facility policy titled, Cleaning of Shared Equipment with a review date of 12/29/2023, revealed that the purpose was to decrease the risk of cross transmission of bacteria that could colonize or infected patients. It was revealed that medical equipment which is shared between patients shall be cleaned with soap and water or other appropriate cleaner and then disinfected prior to and again after its use on another patient. Sharded equipment include but are not limited to blood pressure cuffs and pulse oximeters. An observation on 9/4/2024 at 9:20 am revealed that Certified Nurses Aid (CNA) JJ, removed an electronic blood pressure cuff out of a room and went across the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-03 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review and review of the facility's policies Skilled Nursing Services Grievance/Concern Guidelines for Patients and Missing Items, the facility failed to appropriately resolve grievances and provide a reasonable expected time frame for completing the review of the grievances related to lost personal items for three of 13 sampled residents (R) (R1, R2, and R8). Findings include: Review of facility's policy titled, Skilled Nursing Services Grievance/Concern Guidelines for Patients dated 12/29/2023, under the Policy Statement revealed, It is also the intent of the center to support each patient's right to voice concerns and to assure that after receiving a concern/grievance, we will actively seek a resolution and keep the patient (or representative) apprised of our progress toward resolution . Under the section titled, Guidelines revealed, Patients will be provided with reasonable expected time frames for completion. lf the concern is not resolved within three business days, the administrator /designee should give a written response to the complainant.…
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 · D2024-04-03 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to offer one of 13 sampled residents (R) (R2) the choice for showers and to facilitate scheduled shower times that would accommodate the needs of the resident. This failure had the potential to affect the resident's comfort, body image and increase the risk for infections. Findings include: Review of R2's face sheet revealed she admitted with the following diagnoses that included bilateral amputee, end stage renal disease on hemodialysis. Review R2's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Section C-Cognitive Pattern, a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 which indicated she was cognitively intact; Section F-Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities indicated it was somewhat important to her to choose what clothes to wear and choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath. Section GG-Functional Abilities and Goals revealed she was dependent on ADL care needs; Section H-Bladder…
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 · D2024-04-03 · 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 staff and resident interviews, record review and review of the facility's policy titled, Activity of Daily living (ADL) Plan of Care, the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for one of 13 sampled residents (R) (R2) related to bath/shower preferences. Findings Include: Review of facility policy for ADL Plan of Care dated 12/29/2023 Intent statement revealed, Develop and communicate patient needs for assistance with an ADLs. Record review of R2's face sheet revealed diagnoses that included bilateral amputee, end stage renal disease on hemodialysis. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) for R2's dated 12/4/2023 revealed Section C-Cognitive Pattern, a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 which indicated she was cognitively intact; Section F-Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities indicated it was somewhat important to her to choose what clothes to wear and choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath. Section GG-Functional Abilities and Goals revealed she was dependent on ADL care needs. Review of facility's ADL…
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 · D2024-04-03 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working 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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to have operating mechanical lifts readily available for use to provide care for one of 13 sampled residents (R) (R13) reviewed. Findings include: Review of R13's Annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, and dependent for all Activities of Daily Living (ADL) needs with use of a mechanical lift; diagnoses included but not limited to arthritis, Alzheimer's Disease, Cerebrovascular Accident, dementia and hemiplegia or hemiparesis. Observation on 3/20/2024 at 9:40 am revealed multiple items on both sides of hallways on all five halls consisting of mechanical lifts not in use at that time with most of them not plugged into the power socket to keep them charged and readily available for use. Observation and Interview on 3/27/2024 at 12:30 pm on hallway B revealed one mechanical lift near R13's room, who was sitting in his wheelchair in…
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 · D2022-06-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the call light was kept within reach for one resident (R) (R #114), of 23 sampled residents. Findings include: A policy related to call light use was requested from the facility, but the facility did not have a policy. A review of R#114's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side and muscle weakness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The resident required extensive assistance by two staff for bed mobility. The resident was totally dependent on two staff for transfers, dressing, and toilet use. The resident required extensive assistance by one staff member for personal hygiene. The care plan dated 5/25/22,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 $2.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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 115473. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-19, 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.