Pruitthealth - Bethany
466 South Gray Street, Millen, GA 30442 · For profit - Corporation · 100 certified beds · (478) 982-2531 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 4 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $91,062 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-11)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 25% 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 1 to 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 | 2.2% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.8% | 5.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.7% | 11.3% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 6.1% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 2.7% | 20.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.8% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 2.4% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.4% | 19.9% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.6% | 2.6% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.4% | 78.4% | 79.4% | better |
§ 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 100 beds and averages 79.5 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 20 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 2.80 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.21 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 2.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.10 on weekdays — 34% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-07-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Abuse Prevention and Reporting, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect by staff for one of five sampled residents (R) (R1) during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care. Specifically, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) CC was providing ADL care to R1 unassisted when R1 rolled away from CNA CC, falling from the bed, landing face down on the floor with blood noted on the head with a large open area, 14 cenimeter (cm) head laceration, and the scalp was pulled away from the head, exposing the skull. R1 expired at the hospital 50 minutes post fall. On [DATE], it was determined that a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had the likelihood to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The facility's Senior Nurse Consultant (SNC) was informed of the Immediate Jeopardy on [DATE] at 4:06 pm. The noncompliance related to 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-07-11 · 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 record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Care Plans, the facility failed to develop an accurate person-centered comprehensive care plan for one of five sampled residents (R) (R1) that specified the need for two-person assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care. On 7/9/2024, it was determined that a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had the likelihood to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The facility's Senior Nurse Consultant (SNC) was informed of the Immediate Jeopardy on 7/9/2024 at 4:06 pm. The noncompliance related to the Immediate Jeopardy was determined to have existed on 6/30/2024. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Care Plans, revised 7/27/2023, revealed it is the policy of the health care center for each patient/resident to have a person-centered baseline care plan followed by a comprehensive care plan developed following completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Care Area Assessment (CAA) portions of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-07-11 · 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 staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate assistance for bed mobility for one of five residents (R) (R1) reviewed for falls. Specifically, R1 fell from the bed during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care on [DATE], resulting in death within 50 minutes post-fall. On [DATE], it was determined that a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had the likelihood to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The facility's Senior Nurse Consultant (SNC) was informed of the Immediate Jeopardy on [DATE] at 4:06 pm. The noncompliance related to the Immediate Jeopardy was determined to have existed on [DATE]. Findings include: A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) documented that R1 was dependent on staff for self-care and mobility. The helper does all of the effort. The resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-07-11 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — isolatedAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's Administrator and Director of Health Services (DHS) job descriptions, the facility Administration failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (R) (R1) was free from neglect during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care. This failure resulted in R1 falling from the bed and expiring at the hospital 50 minutes post-fall. On 7/9/2024, it was determined that a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had the likelihood to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The facility's Senior Nurse Consultant (SNC) was informed of the Immediate Jeopardy IJ on 7/9/2024 at 4:06 pm. The noncompliance related to the Immediate Jeopardy was determined to have existed on 6/30/2024. Findings include: Review of the facility-provided document titled Position Description-Administrator dated 12/27/2016, revealed the job purpose is to direct the day-to-day functions of the nursing center in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations that govern…
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 · D2025-05-08 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Monitoring of Antipsychotics, the facility failed to monitor targeted behaviors for the use of an antidepressant medication for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident (R )40) out of 23 sampled residents. This failure had the potential for residents to receive unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy Monitoring of Antipsychotics with a revision date of 7/20/2020 and provided by the facility indicated, .Every patient/resident on a psychotropic medication will have an order for behavior monitoring in the EMAR [electronic medication administration record] system. This must be filled out by every nurse every shift and must spell out what behaviors have occurred on that shift . Review of R40's undated Face Sheet located under the Resident tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) indicated R40 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of depressive…
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 · D2025-05-08 · 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 policy titled Medication Administration: General Guidelines, the facility failed to ensure infection control was maintained for one of three residents (Resident (R) 20) observed during medication administration. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that pills were not touched with bare hands or dropped during medication administration, which increased the risk for cross-contamination and infection. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration: General Guidelines dated 4/10/2019 provided by the facility indicated, .A clean spatula, razor blade, or knife is used to avoid contact with the tablet. During observation and interview of medication administration on 5/7/2025 from 9:00 am to 9:10 am, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5, revealed LPN5 was opening multiple pill packs for R20 and pouring them into the pill cup when one of the pills missed the cup and ended up on the top of the medication cart. LPN5 picked up the unknown pill with a bare hand and placed it back into…
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 · D2025-05-08 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, review of the facility policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Program, and review of McGeer's criteria, the facility failed to have an Antibiotic Stewardship Program that followed current standards of practice for prescribing an antibiotic for two of three residents (Resident (R)13 and R15) reviewed for antibiotic stewardship out of total sample of 23. This failure had the potential to cause residents to be prescribed antibiotics that were potentially unnecessary. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy Antibiotic Stewardship Program, with a revision date of 11/30/2023, and provided by the facility stated, . The antibiotic time out should be performed within 24-48 hours after antibiotics are initiated . The ASP [Antibiotic Stewardship Program] Team will monitor and review the following data: i. Infections and antibiotic usage patterns on a regular basis . v. Include a separate report for the number of residents on antibiotics that did not meet criteria for…
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 · D2025-05-08 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, review of the facility policy titled, Pneumococcal Vaccinations, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to offer or provide documentation of consent or refusal for three of five residents (Residents (R)13, R40, and R60) and/or their resident representatives the opportunity for the residents to receive influenza and/or pneumonia vaccines out of 23 sample residents. This failure had the potential to put these residents at an increased risk of developing influenza and/or pneumonia. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy Pneumococcal Vaccinations dated 8/29/2023 and provided by the facility stated, . The admission process will include determining whether the patient/resident has received the pneumococcal vaccine in the past. This will be the responsibility of the Director of Health Services or designee. Every effort will be made to obtain documentation of the date of prior immunization and what type 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 · E2023-09-28 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' rooms and bathrooms were safe and maintained to promote a pleasant and homelike environment in 24 of 53 rooms (101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 130 and 132) observed. Findings include: During an environmental tour of the facility on 09/28/23 at 9:45 am, the following maintenance items were observed: 1. Resident rooms 105, 106, 107,108, 110, 112, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130 and 132 had missing threshold strips on one or both sides of the entrance into the bathroom. The missing strip was between the tile floor and the laminate floor, which created an uneven surface going into and out of the bathroom. 2. Resident rooms 101, 103, 127 had missing baseboards. 3. The bathroom between resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] was observed to have an over the toilet assistive device in disrepair. All four legs were heavily coated with a rust-colored substance.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-28 · 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
Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and a review of the facility policy titled, admission Orders, the facility failed to have a physician order for administering oxygen for one of two resident (R) (66) reviewed for oxygen and failed to have a physician order for the tracheostomy size and type for one of one (R81) resident reviewed for tracheostomy (a tube inside of the windpipe in the throat to allow for breathing) care. This placed R66 at risk for receiving too much or too little oxygen and placed R81 at risk of having respiratory issues related to the incorrect size or type of tracheostomy appliance. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled admission Orders, dated September 2022, provided by the facility indicated, .Policy: At the time of admission to a healthcare center/agency, in order to assure quality patient/resident care and to comply with Federal law it is necessary that complete and accurate physician orders for the patient/resident's immediate care be obtained. 1. The orders must be reviewed by the admitting nurse and should at least address…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-04-14 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide 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, interviews, record review, and facility policy, the facility failed to maintain oxygen equipment (including changing and dating oxygen tubing, cleaning oxygen concentrator filters, and storing nasal cannula tubing in clear bags) for three residents of four residents (Resident (R) 19, R43, and R47) reviewed for respiratory/oxygen therapy. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain emergency equipment for one resident of one resident (R7) with a tracheostomy. The deficient practice had potential to affect four of eleven residents receiving respiratory treatment by increasing respiratory germs exposure; cause R43 respiratory distress due to inaccurate oxygen flow rate; and the potential for the emergency tracheostomy kit to have outdated or missing supplies. Findings include: Review of the facility-provided policy titled Oxygen Administration, revised [DATE], revealed .Regulate liter flow to ordered/desired flow rate . O2 [oxygen] humidifier bottles should be used on all patients receiving…
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 · E2022-04-14 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure proper consistency of the pureed meats for nine residents on pureed texture diets of 78 census residents. The deficient practice has the potential to create a choking risk and result in decreased resident intake. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Pureed Texture undated, indicated The pureed texture provides foods with a semi-liquid to semi- solid consistency such as applesauce to mashed potatoes. The pureed texture consistency is normally that of applesauce or mashed potatoes. Some foods may be smooth, and some may have some texture but no lumps. During an observation of the main kitchen on 04/13/22 at 9:43 AM, the Dietary Manager (DM) said the Robot Coupe (motorized blender) was not working right now and they were having a hard time finding a replacement. They were using a small blender to puree the food. Dietary Aide (DA) 1 was observed pureeing diced chicken. DA1 placed some diced chicken in the blender along with some stock from the chicken. DA1 blended 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 · D2022-04-14 · 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, interviews, record review, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident of 24 sampled residents (Resident (R) 14) had a physician's order and was screened/assessed for the self-administration of medications prior to medications being stored at the bedside and self-administered by the resident. The deficient practice created the potential for medication errors to occur. Findings include: Review of facility-provided policy titled, Self-Administration of Medications by Patient/Resident, revised 01/28/20, revealed .Each patient/resident who desires to self-administer medication is permitted to do so if the healthcare center's Licensed Nurse and physician have determined that the practice would be safe for the patient and other patients/residents of the healthcare center. medication self-administration also applies to family members who wish to administer medications. The opportunity to self-administer medications is reviewed during the routine assessment by the healthcare…
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 · D2022-04-14 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were encoded and transmitted for two of two residents (Resident (R) 1 and R2) reviewed for Resident Assessment. This failure creates a potential discrepancy or delay in benefits due to payor sources not notified of a resident's admission status. Findings include: 1. Review of R1's Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR) showed a facility admission date of [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included heart failure, hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease, and end stage renal disease. Further review of the Face Sheet indicated the resident's status as Expired. Review of R1's Progress Notes located in the EMR revealed on [DATE] at 1:37 PM, the Nurses Note, indicated, [Local Hospital] center called to check on resident status. Was reported resident was transferred to [Regional Hospital]. Review of R1's MDS located in the EMR in the under the RAI Tab showed the following assessment…
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 · D2022-04-14 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight, for one of one resident (Resident (R) 18) reviewed for nutritional status; resulting in continued significant weight loss. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Patients/Residents at Nutritional Risk revised June 2016 indicated It is the policy of [facility name] for the in-house Registered Dietitian (RD) or Consulting Dietitian to routinely assess patients/residents at nutritional risk. Documentation must be completed at a minimum of quarterly and/or as needed based on change in enteral feedings, tolerance, changes with nutritional interventions, and/or significant weight loss. Review of R18's Face Sheet, undated, located in R18's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab, indicated a current admission date to the facility of 09/10/21 and readmission on [DATE]. The Face Sheet indicated R18 had diagnoses 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.
“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
$91,062 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $91,062 — penalty dated 2024-07-11
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-07-14 for 29 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRUITTHEALTH — 95 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
The other 94 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 94; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNITED HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA, INC. | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/01/2010 |
| J PAIGE PRUITT TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/22/2021 |
| NEIL L PRUITT JR TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/12/2020 |
| NWP 2020 CHILD TR FBO NEIL L PRUITT JR | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/12/2020 |
| UNITED HEALTH SERVICES INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/27/2013 |
| PRUITT, NEIL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/27/2013 |
| SMALL, PHILIP | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/27/2013 |
| PRUITT, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/27/2013 |
| PRUITTHEALTH INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/01/2010 |
| GAY, HEYWOOD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/15/2006 |
| NEAL, ANTWANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/21/2025 |
| PRUITTHEALTH CONSULTING SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/26/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.
7 organizational owners 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 82% 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 $2.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 25% 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 115700. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-08, 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.