PruittHealth - Lakeside, LLC
3020 Jeffersonville Road, Macon, GA 31217 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 92 certified beds · (478) 746-3547 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 improved from 3 to 4 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 | 6.7% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.2% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.4% | 0.9% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| 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 | 0.4% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.1% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.9% | 20.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.1% | 5.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.7% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.3% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.32 | 2.15 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.85 | 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: this home’s payroll records show 0.10 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 6% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 13.6%CMS range 9.7–19.1 | 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 | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.86 | 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 92 beds and averages 58.8 residents a day — about 64% occupied, or roughly 33 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.25 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.95 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 2.72 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.39 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.29 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% 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 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-04-16 · 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 a review of the facility's policy titled Labeling, Dating, and Storage, the facility failed to ensure food items in the walk-in refrigerator, freezer, emergency water/food supply, and dry storage were properly dated and expired foods were disposed of. The deficient practices had the potential to place 53 of 55 residents(R) who receive food from the kitchen at risk of contracting a foodborne illness.Findings Include:Review of the facility's policy titled Label, Dating, and Storage, reviewed and dated 11/11/2022, documented in Procedure 1: Food and beverage items will have an identifying label as well as a received date and opened date, as applicable; for items prepared onsite, a use by date will also be indicated.During the initial tour on 04/14/2026 at 8:42 AM, with the Assistant Kitchen Manager (AKM) and Kitchen Manager(KM), it was revealed the freezer contained opened items such as a bag of squash, a box of red velvet layer cake, and a bag of sliced salami, boxes of ground beef, vanilla ice cream, and orange juice were open with no…
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 · D2026-04-16 · 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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the need for a Level II Preadmission Screening/Resident Review (PASARR) for evaluation and determination for specialized services were offered to meet resident needs for one of 10 sampled residents (R) (R9) for PASARR Level II.Findings include:Review of Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed R9 had diagnoses of but not limited to unspecified intellectual disabilities, schizoaffective disorder, degenerative disease of nervous system. Further review revealed R9 had a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder upon admission on [DATE].Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for R9 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Section A revealed R9 had not been evaluated for Level II PASARR.Review of Care Plan dated 04/15/2026 revealed R9 Problem: Resident is resistive of care from staff. Resident may swing at staff during care provided. Approach: Explain the care staff wants to provide to the resident. Behavior monitoring…
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 · D2025-03-02 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the timely submission of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one of five residents (R) (R49). The deficient practice had the potential to increase the probability for R49 not to receive care according to their care needs. Findings include: Record review for R49 revealed resident was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of but not limited to chronic kidney disease stage 5, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, right upper quadrant abdominal mass, essential hypertension, syncope and collapse, hyperlipidemia, bradycardia, and generalized anxiety disorder. Resident medication review revealed a physicians order for the following, atorvastatin 40 mg (milligram), Breo Ellipta 100-25, buspirone 10 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, gabapentin 300 mg, hydroxyzine 25 mg, pantoprazole 20 mg, paricalcitol 1 mcg (microgram), and paroxetine Hcl (hydrochloride) 40 mg. Review of R49's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments…
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 · D2025-03-02 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments was accurate for one resident (R) (R15) related to inaccurate coding of the preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) level II. The sample size was 27. Findings include: A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) Annual Assessment, Section A-Identification A, dated 12/19/24, revealed R15 was not assessed for PASARR level II. A review of the medical record revealed R15 had a PASARR level II assessment, with a start date of 8/25/23 and end date of 12/31/2299. During an interview with the MDS Coordinator on 3/1/2025 at 3:25 pm, she acknowledged the MDS OBRA Annual Assessment, Section A-Identification Information, dated 12/19/24, indicated R15 had not been screened for a PASARR II. The MDS Coordinator confirmed that R15 was issued a PASARR II on 8/5/2023, and the MDS was not accurately coded. The MDS Coordinator said the Social Worker (SW) put the information in section A, but she said it was the MDS Coordinator'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 · F2023-11-05 · 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
Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and a review of the facility policy titled, Legionella Water Management, the facility failed to develop an updated water management program plan for the prevention of Legionella for 52 of 52 residents in the building. The deficient practice had the potential to promote growth of Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens in the building water systems. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Legionella Water Management, revised 2017, revealed 3. The purposes of water management program are to identify areas in the water system where Legionella bacteria can grow and spread, and to reduce the risk of Legionnaire's disease. 4. The water management program used by our facility is based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and ASHRAE recommendations for developing water management program. e. Specific measures used to control the introduction of and/or spread of legionella (e.g., temperature, disinfectants); f. The control limits or parameters that are acceptable and that are monitored; g. A diagram 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 · E2023-11-05 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure that it was maintained in a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment in four of 16 resident rooms (A111, A112, A113, and A115) on A hall and two of 16 resident rooms (B202 and B204) on B hall (two of three halls) that included dust and grime buildup on packaged terminal air conditioners (PTAC) vents and rooms A109/A111 and A110/A112 shared bathroom air vents with dust buildup. The facility census was 50. Findings revealed: The facility does not have a maintenance or housekeeping policy. Observations made during initial rounds on 11/03/2023 between 8:00 AM and10:00 AM revealed: Room A9/A11 and A10/A12 shared bathroom vent to have dust buildup. Rooms A11, A12, A13, A15, B2 and B4 PTAC units had dirt and dust buildup on the vents and front grate area. Observations made during initial rounds on 11/04/2023 at 9:00 AM revealed: Room A9/A11 and A10/A12 shared bathroom vent to have dust buildup. Rooms A11, A12, A13, A15, B2 and B4 PTAC units had dirt and dust buildup on the vents and front grate area. Interview 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 · D2023-11-05 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with 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 resident interviews, staff interviews, and the review of the facility policy titled, Resident Trust Policy and a document titled Patient Trust Fund Authorization/Agreement the facility failed to provide resident trust fund account quarterly statements for three of four resident (R) (R#24, R#30, and R#39) reviewed. Forty-four (44) resident trust fund accounts are managed by the facility. Findings: Review of the undated policy titled, Resident Trust Policy revealed: Upon written authorization of a resident, Eastview Nursing Center must safeguard, manage, and account for the personal funds of the resident deposited in their account. 6. The resident shall have reasonable access, upon request, to a record of all transactions made to his/her account. Quarterly statements will be provided in writing to the resident or to the resident's responsible party. Review of the document titled, Patient Trust Fund Authorization/Agreement updated 5/19/2018 indicated: I acknowledge that I have been advised of my rights to…
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 · D2023-11-05 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 interview, and the review of the facility policy titled, Restorative Nursing Services, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident (R) 8 reviewed for range of motion (ROM) received a splint/brace as needed to address her limited range of motion in her right hand. The deficient practice had the potential for further reduction of ROM. The sample size was 19 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Restorative Nursing Services revised July 2017 revealed residents will receive restorative nursing care as needed to help promote optimal safety and independence. Restorative nursing care consists of nursing interventions that may or may not be accompanied by formalized rehabilitative services. Residents may be started on a restorative nursing program upon admission, during the course of stay or when discharged from rehabilitative care. Restorative goals and objectives are individualized and resident-centered, and are outlined in the resident's plan 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 · D2023-11-05 · 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 observation, staff interview, and review of facility documents titled, Safety Data Sheets and Material Safety Data Sheets, the facility failed to store chemicals so that they were inaccessible to residents and visitors in one unoccupied resident room under renovation, on one of three halls. The facility census was 52. Findings include: Review of the Safety Data Sheet for ARDEX Feather Finish dated December 13,2020 revealed under Section 11- Toxicological Information: Routes of expose skin and eyes (yes), ingestion (yes). Skin corrosion or irritation causes skin irritation. Prolonged exposure to wet product may cause skin burns. Serious eye damage/eye irritation: Causes eye burns. May cause blindness. Specific Target Organ Toxicity, Single exposure: May cause respiratory irritation. Review of the Material Safety Data Sheet issue date August 1, 2013, revealed under Section 2- Hazards Identification: Hazard Statements: This product may cause slight irritation to the eye. May cause slight irritation to…
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 · D2023-11-05 · 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, Prevention of Infection Oxygen Use, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for one of four residents (R) (R17) receiving oxygen therapy related to ensuring oxygen filter were cleaned and oxygen nasal cannula were routinely changed. This deficient practice had the potential to cause respiratory associated infections and or illnesses. Findings include: Review of facility's undated policy titled, Prevention of Infection Oxygen Use under; Infection control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration - 1. Obtain equipment (i.e., oxygen tubing, and prefilled humidifier). 2. [NAME] bottle with date and initials upon opening and discard when empty. 3. Check water level of any pre-filled reservoir. 4. Change pre-filled humidifier when empty. 5. Change the oxygen cannula and tubing every seven (7) days, or as needed. 6. Keep the oxygen cannula and tubing used PRN…
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.
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 $477K 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 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 115656. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-16, 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.