Woods at Lumber City of Journey LLC, The
93 Ga- 19, Lumber City, GA 31549 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 86 certified beds · (912) 363-2484 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 10.3% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.8% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.9% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 36.8% | 11.3% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger 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 | 1.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.4% | 15.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.7% | 20.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.4% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.9% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.0% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.0% | 19.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 7.1% | 2.6% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.5% | 78.4% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.4% | 25.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.8% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.67 | 2.15 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 4.80 | 1.90 | 1.80 | worse |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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: this home’s payroll records show 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 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 6.5–17.2 | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 1.20 | 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 86 beds and averages 62.4 residents a day — about 73% occupied, or roughly 24 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.23 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.01 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.32 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.37 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2022-03-31 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 record review, staff and family interviews, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to provide supervision and failed to ensure that coffee was served at a safe temperature for one of one residents (R#10) reviewed for burns. Actual harm occurred on 8/10/2021, when R#10 sustained burns to his right thigh after spilling coffee on himself when he was allowed to self-transport hot coffee via wheelchair without staff assistance. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Hot Beverages Brought in from the Outside (2021) purpose identified to ensure safety when dealing with hot temperature fluids and beverages . Liquids at 135 degrees Fahrenheit or higher can cause severe burning and even blistering. Record review revealed R#10 was admitted to the facility 11/7/2007 with diagnoses that included anxiety disorder, restless legs syndrome, dysphagia, peripheral vascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, and aphasia. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-08-14 · 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, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Ice Machines and Portable Ice Carts, the facility failed to ensure that one of one ice machines was clean and sanitized. This had the potential to affect 54 out of 59 residents receiving an oral diet from the kitchen.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Ice Machines and Portable Ice Carts, with revised date of 4/25/2025, Under the Policy statement revealed, It is the policy of this facility to ensure that ice machines/carts are working in proper order, cleaned, and maintained as per Federal, State, local, or facility guidance, according to manufacturer's instructions and current standards of practice. Under Policy Explanation: revealed, 1. Ice machines can be prone to microbial contamination due to improper handling or storage of ice, poor cleaning or maintenance of equipment, or through ice handling equipment. Proper cleaning, maintenance, and infection control in relation to ice machines is important to decrease the risk of illness to residents, staff 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 · D2025-08-14 · 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
Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Advance Directive, the facility failed to provide residents and/or representatives written information regarding the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment for two out of three Residents (R) (R9 and R33). The deficient practice had the potential to affect the resident's highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.Finding include: Review of the facility's policy titled Advanced Directive Policy dated 3/5/2025 under the Policy statement revealed, It is the policy of this facility to support and facilitate a resident's right to request, refuse and /or discontinue medical or surgical treatment and formulate advanced directives. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines revealed, .2. The facility will provide the resident or resident representative information, in a manner that is easy to understand, about the right to refuse medical or surgical treatment and formulate an advance directive.1. Review of the clinical records revealed that R33 was…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled Safe and Homelike Environment, the facility failed to ensure that it maintained a safe, comfortable, and homelike environment for two out of 15 rooms located on the 100 hall. Specifically, the toilet lid was the wrong size in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER]-1 and the paint was peeling from the wall in room [ROOM NUMBER]-2.Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Safe and home-like environment dated 4/23/2025 under the Policy statement revealed, In accordance with resident rights, the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable home-like environment, allowing the residents to use his or her personal belongings to the extent possible. This includes. Be sure that the resident can receive care and services safely and that the physical layout of the facility maximizes residence independence and does not pose a safety risk. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines revealed, 3. Housekeeping 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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, the facility failed to report resident-to-staff abuse immediately, but no later than 2- hours of the allegation to the State Agency for one out of 32 sampled Residents (R) (R68).Finding include:Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, dated 3/25/2025 Under the Policy statement revealed, It is the policy of the facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. Under the Reporting/Response section revealed, A. The facility will have written procedures that include: Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services, and to all other required agencies within specified timeframes: a. Immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0627 — isolatedEnsure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Discharge Planning Process, the facility failed to ensure one out of four Residents (R) (R68) reviewed for discharges was not inappropriately transferred and discharged against the resident and/or representative wishes. As a result, R68 stayed at the hospital longer than expected until placement could be found at another facility.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Discharge Planning Process dated 4/1/2025 under the Policy statement revealed, It is the policy of the facility to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that focuses on the residence. Discharge goals, the preparation of residence. To be active partners and effectively transition them to post-discharge care and the reduction of factors leading to preventable readmissions. Under the Procedure section revealed, 10. The facility will assist residents and their resident representatives to choosing an appropriate post-acute care provider (another SNF, HHR, IRF, or LTCH) that will meet the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-14 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Discharge Planning Process, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge plan to ensure a successful discharge for one out of four Residents (R) (R68) reviewed for discharges. Specifically, R68 was not accepted back to the facility after hospital discharge and did not have a discharge transfer to another facility in place.Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Discharge Planning Process dated 4/1/2025 under the Policy statement revealed, It is the policy of the facility to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that focuses on the residence. Discharge goals, the preparation of residence. To be active partners and effectively transition them to post-discharge care and the reduction of factors leading to preventable readmissions. Under the Procedure section revealed, 10. The facility will assist residents and their resident representatives to choosing an appropriate post-acute care provider (another SNF, HHR, IRF, or LTCH) that will meet…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the menu was followed to assure the appropriate nutrition was received for residents on a puree diet. This had the potential to affect five out of five residents who received a puree diet at the facility.Findings include: Observation and interview on 8/13/2025 at 10:30 am revealed, Dietary [NAME] (DC) II preparing a meal for the five residents who received a pureed diet. The Dietary Kitchen Manager (DKM) was present and provided a copy of menu and the recipe for Philly steak filet, dinner roll, mashed potatoes, and vegetable juice. Further observation revealed the preparation of the puree meal that included the Philly Steak Filet which consisted of seven scoops of Philly Steak, and four scoops of gravy placed in the food processor, pureed and then checked for consistency. Once the consistency was reached, the processor was emptied, cleaned, and air dried; the station was sanitized; and the processor was prepared for the next item. The Philly Steak was then placed in a 6 serving pan,…
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 · D2025-08-14 · 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 facility's policies titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program and Medication Administration, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices was maintained during one of two wound care observations and one of one perineal care observations conducted with staff Registered Nurse (RN) RN BB, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) LPN CC, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) CNA GG, and CNA HH ). The deficient practice had the potential to spread infection to other residents and staff.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, last date revised 5/19/2025, under the Policy statement revealed, This facility has established and maintains an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections as per accepted national standards and guidelines. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines revealed, .4. Standard Precautions,…
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.
- 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 JOURNEY HEALTHCARE — 32 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 | 2 of 5 | 1.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 31 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| LOWE, ANJUAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/07/2022 |
| FORRISTER, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/07/2022 |
| LEMCKE, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/07/2022 |
| PEACH HEALTH GROUP LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/07/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $277K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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, FY2023). 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 115404. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, 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.