Montezuma Health And Rehabilitation
506 Sumter St, Montezuma, GA 31063 · Non profit - Other · 100 certified beds · (478) 472-8168 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)
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $15,593 in federal fines (most recent 2023-11-30)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 23% 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 26.8% | 15.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.3% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 1.1% | 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 | 2.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 29.3% | 15.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.8% | 20.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.9% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.0% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.0% | 19.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.2% | 78.4% | 79.4% | typical |
* 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 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 17% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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 | 90.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 100 beds and averages 68.4 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 32 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 3.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 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 2.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.61 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-11-30 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the care plan was followed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) ensuring that care was provided by the appropriate number of staff, to prevent accidents, for one resident (R3), and that the care plan for wound treatments was followed related to treatments being provided as ordered by the physican, for one resident (R5), from a total sample of eight residents. Actual harm was identified to have occurred on 10/9/2023, when a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) provided ADL care to R3 by herself, instead of with the required two-person assistance. R3 fell from the bed and sustained a hematoma to the right side of the face. Findings include: 1. Review of the clinical record for R3 revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's, cerebral infarction, and age-related osteoporosis. Review of the care plan revealed that R3 had impaired cognition, a self-care deficit,…
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.
- Actual harm · G2023-11-30 · 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care was provided by the appropriate number of staff, to prevent accidents, for one resident (R3), from a total sample of eight residents. Actual harm was identified to have occurred on 10/9/2023, when a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) EE provided ADL care to R3 by herself, instead of with the required two-person assistance. R3 fell from the bed and sustained a hematoma to the right side of the face. Findings include: Review of the clinical record for R3 revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's, cerebral infarction, and age-related osteoporosis. Review of the care plan revealed that R3 had impaired cognition, a self-care deficit, limited mobility, and was at risk for falls. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] indicated that R3 is dependent on staff related to toileting, shower/bathe…
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 before2026-01-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, interview, and the policy titled Storage Areas, the facility failed to ensure food items were properly labeled, dated, and stored under sanitary conditions to prevent foodborne illness. The deficient practice had the potential to affect all 68 residents. Findings include:Review of the policy titled Storage Areas, dated 12/27/2024, documented under Guideline: Items should be covered, sealed, labeled and dated appropriately.The initial kitchen tour with the Dietary Manager (DM) on 1/16/2026 from 8:15 AM through 8:43 AM revealed the following concerns:Reach-in freezer contained a box of turkey sausage patties, and traditional cinnamon roll dough that were not labeled or dated. Walk-in refrigerator contained a bag of opened pub-style battered cod fillets, and a container of pimento cheese that were not labeled or dated.Pantry contained two boxes of expired ketchup.Interview with DM during the tour on 1/16/2026 starting at 8:15 AM, confirmed all surveyor identified concerns. The DM immediately discarded all food items that were not labeled or dated. The DM stated…
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 · D2026-01-18 · 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 observation, record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Use of Oxygen Therapy, the facility failed to follow Physician's Order for one of one resident (R) (R10) reviewed for receiving oxygen. The deficient practice had the potential to place R10 at risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Findings include:Review of the policy titled Use of Oxygen Therapy, dated 12/27/2024 documented under Intent: To ensure that patients maintain optimal oxygenation via the proper oxygen device and concentration when appropriate and medically indicated. Documented under Guideline: Physician's order for oxygen should be obtained and include Oxygen with liter flow as ordered.Review of the clinical record for R10 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of but not limited to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia.R10's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 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 · D2024-09-04 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration-General, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5 percent (%). A total of 28 opportunities were observed, with four errors for two residents (R) (R6 and R11), resulting in an error rate of 14.2 %. This failure had the potential to result in medication not being given in accordance with the physician's orders and had the potential to adversely affect R6 and R11's clinical condition. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration-General, dated 2024, revealed the policy guidelines included that medications are to be administered in accordance with a valid prescriber order. The guidelines also instructed the Nurse or Certified Medication Aide (CMA) to read the administration directions on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and verify the correct medication, dose, and directions for use, prior to medication administration. 1. A review of the clinical record revealed R6 had a physician'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 · D2023-11-30 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that pressure ulcer treatments were provided as ordered by the physician for two residents (R1 and R5), and that pressure ulcers were accurately assessed and monitored for two residents (R4 and R5) from a total sample of eight residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the clinical record revealed that R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cerebral infarction, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of the care plan revealed that R1 had cognitive impairment, limited mobility, a self-care deficit, and skin breakdown. Further review of the clinical record revealed that R1 was hospitalized from [DATE] through 9/11/2023. Review of the electronic August 2023 Treatment Administration Records (TAR's) revealed that prior to the 8/27/2023 hospital admission, R1 had physician ordered wound treatments for a left heel ulcer, left anterior…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-07-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, and a review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning and Sanitizing, the facility failed to demonstrate the proper procedure to wash dishware in the three compartment sink to prevent food borne illness. The facility census was 69, with 67 residents consuming an oral diet. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Cleaning and Sanitizing revealed that for three compartment sink, items should be fully submerged in the sanitizer solution per manufacturer guidelines. Review of EcoLab Oasis 146 Multi-Quat Sanitizer Product Specification Document revealed: Expose all surfaces to the sanitizing solution for a period of not less than one minute. Observation on 7/1/2023 at 10:40 a.m. of Dietary [NAME] BB washing the food processor bowl, blade, and lid in the three compartment sink revealed that she washed the items with soapy water, rinsed and placed all the items in the sanitizing sink for 15 seconds then placed on shelf area to dry. Continued observation revealed a poster hung on the wall in front of the wash sink. The post was labeled…
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 · E2023-07-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and a review of the facility's policies titled Medication Storage in the Care Center, and Insulin Administration, a review of latanoprost ophthalmic solutions manufacturer packet insert, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled and stored properly for four of five medication carts (South Hall Certified Medication Aide (CMA) cart one, South Hall Nurse cart, South Hall CMA cart two, and North Hall Nurse cart). Findings include: A review of the policy titled Medication Storage in the Care Center, revealed the intent was to ensure medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. Guidelines included for medications requiring refrigeration or temperatures between two degrees Celcius (C) (36 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and eight degrees C (46 degrees F) are kept in a refrigerator with a thermometer to allow temperature monitoring. A review of the undated policy titled Insulin Administration, revealed the intent was 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 · D2023-07-02 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and a review of the facility's policy titled, Intravenous Antibiotic, the facility failed to ensure all nursing staff had the competencies and skill set necessary to provide care for residents receiving intravenous therapy through an Intravenous Infusion Pump for one of two residents (R) (#4) reviewed for intravenous therapy. This failure had the potential for residents to have a decline in health status. Findings include: Review of the undated policy titled, Intravenous Antibiotic, intravenous antibiotics may be administered via a variety of modes, such as: small volume minibags administered intermittently, programmable infusion pumps allowing intermittently intervals, and a keep-vein-open rate between intervals and prefilled disposable antibiotic infusion device. A review of the facility provided Facility Assessment reviewed date 05/22/2023 revealed the facility accepts residents with special treatments - intravenous (IV) medications: Number/Average or Range of Residents - 2. A review of the facility's Skill Checklist - Core…
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
$15,593 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $3,728 — penalty dated 2023-11-30
- $5,365 — penalty dated 2023-11-30
- $6,500 — penalty dated 2023-11-30
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 ETHICA HEALTH — 50 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 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
The other 49 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 49; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/31/2003 |
| COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 10/01/2003 |
| CABLE, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/14/2003 |
| DENNIS, KATHRYN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/17/2015 |
| NICHOLS, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/19/2024 |
| PITTMAN, JACQUELINE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2026 |
| ROLLINS, RONNIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/14/2003 |
| WALL, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/14/2003 |
| WARNOCK, RALPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 06/23/2020 |
| CLINICAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/19/2025 |
| MIMS, DEBRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/15/2025 |
| SATCHELL, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| WALKER, SHAWANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2026 |
| SHEFFIELD, KIMBERLY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/15/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.
3 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.
This home reported $1.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 23% 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 115364. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-18, 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.