Riverdale Center for Nursing and Healing
315 Upper Riverdale Road, Riverdale, GA 30274 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 152 certified beds · (770) 991-1050 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Mar 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $10,050 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-08)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 | 17.0% | 15.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.6% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 2.5% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.5% | 11.3% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.5% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.4% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.8% | 20.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.3% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.6% | 15.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.2% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 2.6% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.7% | 78.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.3% | 25.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.2% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.17 | 2.15 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.36 | 1.90 | 1.80 | 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.
40.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 67 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 38.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 68 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 40.6%CMS range 30.8–51.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.9%CMS range 8.9–17.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 38.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 39.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 30.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 60.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 96.2% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 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 | 2.4% | 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 | 7.8%CMS range 2.7–13.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.07 | 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 152 beds and averages 137.4 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.481 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.98 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.65 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Food Receiving and Storage, the facility failed to ensure that opened food items in the dry storage area were properly labeled and dated. In addition, dietary staff failed to ensure that opened food items were properly refrigerated. This deficient practice had the potential to place the 130 residents receiving nutrition and hydration from the kitchen at risk of foodborne illness. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Food Receiving and Storage, dated April 2024, revealed the Guidelines section included, . 6. Dry foods that are stored in bins will be removed from original packing, labeled, and dated. 7.All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled, and dated. Observation on 03/13/2026 at 08:35 AM of the dry storage area revealed a five-pound bag of grits that had been opened with no date, and a three-pound box of potato pearls opened with no open date. During an interview on 03/13/2026 at 10:55 AM, the Dietary Manager (DM) confirmed that the open bag of grits…
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 before2026-03-15 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration, the facility failed to ensure that residents' medications were free from misappropriation by licensed nursing staff during medication administration observations.Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration, revised 04/2025, revealed the Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines section included . 12. Compare medication source (bubble pack, vial, etc.) with MAR [medication administration record] to verify resident name, medication name, form, dose, route, and time.Review of the MAR for R45, dated 03/01/2026 - 03/31/2026, revealed an order for metoprolol succinate oral capsule extended release (ER) 24-hour sprinkle 25 milligram (mg), give 25 mg by mouth one time a day for hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of the MAR for R92, dated 03/01/2026 - 03/31/2026, revealed an order for metoprolol tartrate oral tablet 25 mg, give one tablet by mouth two times a day. Observation during medication administration for R45…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-15 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 MDS 3.0 Completion, the facility failed to complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) comprehensive assessment for one resident (R) (R70) out of 57 sampled residents.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled MDS 3.0 Completion, with a reviewed/revised date of 10/2025, revealed the Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines section included 1. According to federal regulations, the facility conducts initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, and standardized assessment of each resident's functional capacity, using the RAI specified by the State. 2. c. Annual Assessment - a comprehensive assessment completed using an ARD no >366 days from the most recent prior comprehensive assessment and no >92 days from the most recent quarterly assessment (counting ARD to ARD). Review of R70's electronic medical record (EMR) admission Record revealed an admission date of 02/18/2024, with diagnoses including, but not limited to, bradycardia, epilepsy, and vascular dementia. Record review for R70…
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 before2026-03-15 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate 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 observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled MDS 3.0 Completion, the facility failed to accurately reflect the status on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for two of 57 sampled residents (R) (R70 and R1). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled MDS 3.0 Completion, with a reviewed/revised date of 10/2025, revealed the Policy section included, Residents are assessed, using a comprehensive assessment process, in order to identify care needs and to develop an interdisciplinary care plan. 1. Review of R70's electronic medical record (EMR) admission Record revealed an admission date of 02/18/2024, with diagnoses including, but not limited to, bradycardia, epilepsy, and vascular dementia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment for R70, dated 01/19/2026, revealed that section C (Cognitive Patterns) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 2 (indicating severe cognitive impairment). Section J (Health Conditions) documented that 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 · Dcited before2026-03-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure one of 57 sampled residents (R) (R36) received restorative care services as recommended by therapy staff. This deficient practice had the potential to place R36 at risk of unmet needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings include: Review of the clinical record revealed R36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, contractures of the right and left hands, contractures of right and left knees, contractures of right and left ankle, contractures of right and left foot left hand. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for R36, dated 02/12/2026, revealed section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) documented R35 was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADL's). Review of the occupational therapy (OT) discharge documentation revealed R36 was discharged from services on 06/08/2025. The OT document stated, Discharge Recommendations restorative. During an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-15 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, and a review of the facility policy titled Hospice Services Facility Agreement, the facility failed to maintain communication and coordination of care with hospice for one of six residents (R) (R7) receiving hospice palliative care services. This deficient practice had the potential to place R7 at risk of unmet care needs. Findings include:A review of the facility policy titled Hospice Services Facility Agreement, last reviewed/revised date of September 2023, revealed that, It is the policy of this facility to provide and/or arrange for hospice services to protect a resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with, and access to, persons and services inside and outside the facility. The facility has a designated Director of Nursing to be responsible for working with hospice representatives to coordinate care to the resident provided by the facility and hospice staff. The designated member of the facility working with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-15 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled Catheter Care and Infection Prevention and Control Program, the facility failed to follow infection control process during indwelling catheter care for one of 11 residents (R) (R1) with an indwelling urinary catheter. This deficient practice had the potential to place R1 at risk of avoidable infection due to cross-contamination.Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Catheter Care, revised October 2025, revealed Policy: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents with indwelling catheters receive appropriate catheter care and maintain their dignity and privacy when indwelling catheters are in use.Review of the facility's policy titled Infection Prevention and Control Program revised April 2025 documented Policy: This facility has established and maintains an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent…
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 before2025-03-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Food Preparation and Service - Sanitation, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from safety and sanitation hazards in the kitchen to include: keeping an air vent soiled with dust and debris; allowing an electrical outlet without a face plate in the dishwashing room; allowing paint chips to hang over the stove and oven area; using metal food trays that were warped and unserviceable; and maintaining an eye wash sink with a visible, brown substance pooled in it. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 121 of 121 residents who receive an oral diet. Findings include: Review of facility policy, Food Preparation and Services - Sanitation last revised April 2024 documented in Guidelines: 2. All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair and shall be free from breaks, corrosions, open seams, cracks, and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning. Seals, hinges and fasteners will be kept in good repair.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Accommodation of Needs, the facility failed to ensure that one of 50 sampled residents (R) (R60) needs were being met in regards to the call light being within reach. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Accommodation of Needs revised March 2023 revealed under Policy: The facility will treat each resident with respect and dignity and will evaluate and make reasonable accommodations for the individual needs and preferences of a resident, except when the health and safety of the individual or other residents would be endangered. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: .2. The facility will ensure that common areas frequented by residents are accommodating physical limitations and enhance their abilities to maintain independence. 3. Based on individual needs and preferences, the facility will assist the resident in maintaining and/or achieving independent functioning, dignity, and wellbeing 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-20 · 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 observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, the facility failed to implement an oxygen (O2) care plan for one of 50 sampled residents (R) (R60) to ensure the resident reaches his/her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The deficient practice had the potential for R60's needs to go unmet. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered updated December 2022 revealed under Policy Statement: A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Under Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident. 2. The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis 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.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person- Centered, the facility failed to revise a care plan for three of 50 sampled residents (R) (R17, R60, and R98). The deficient practice had the potential for residents not to receive prescribed and needed care and services. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised December 2022 revealed under Policy Interpretation and Implementation: . 13. Assessments of residents are ongoing, and care plans are revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition change. 1. Review of R17's care plan dated 2/16/2025 indicated a focus problem of altered respiratory status/difficulty breathing r/t (related to) chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and requires oxygen 3L (liters) continuously. Goals included but not limited to R17 will maintain normal breathing pattern as evidenced by normal respirations, normal skin color, and regular respiratory rate/pattern.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), the facility failed to provide grooming care for one of 50 sampled residents (R)(R70) dependent on staff for care. This deficient practice had the potential to cause a decline in R70. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) revised January 2024 revealed under Policy: The facility will, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, ensure a resident's abilities in ADLs do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable. Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living: 1. Bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 3. A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen (O2) Administration, the facility failed to ensure that two of four residents (R) (R60 and R17) receiving O2 were administered O2 therapy in accordance with the physician orders. The sample size was 15. The deficient practice had the potential to place R60 and R17 at risk for medical complications, unmet needs, and a diminished quality of life. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration revised December 2022 revealed under Policy: Oxygen is administered to residents who need it, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plans, and the resident's goals and preferences. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Oxygen is administered under the orders of a physician, except in the case of an emergency. In such cases, oxygen is administered and orders for oxygen are obtained as soon as practicable when the situation is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-08 · tag F0557 — patternHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and resident/staff interviews, the facility failed to honor the rights for three of five sampled residents (R) (R26, R27 and R43) related to maintaining personal property within their possession and ensuring possessions are rightfully returned to the residents. Findings included: Record review of the facility policy titled Resident Personal Belongings last revised June 2023 documented the following: It was the policy of the facility to protect the resident's right to possess personal belongings such as clothing and furnishings for their use while in the facility and to assure the personal belongings and or possessions are rightfully returned to the resident's representative in the event of the resident's death or discharge from the facility. All residents' possessions, regardless of their apparent value, will be treated with respect. The facility will support the resident's right to retain and use personal possessions to promote a homelike environment and maintain their…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-08 · tag F0568 — patternProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure money taken from the Resident Trust Account was accounted for and used for resident needs for six of 15 sampled residents (R 29, R33, R34, R35, R36, and R37). Findings include: Review of the Resident Statement Landscape dated 11/20/2023 for R29 revealed a charge for MCD Spendown for $1593.27 on 10/5/2023, which was credited back on 11/27/2023. Review of the Resident Statement Landscape dated 11/29/2023 for R33 revealed a charge for Personal Needs Item for $800.00 on 10/30/2023, which was credited back on 11/24/2023. Review of the Resident Statement Landscape dated 11/29/2023 for R34 revealed a charge for Personal Needs Item for $950.00 on 10/27/2023, which was credited back on 11/27/2023. Review of the Resident Statement Landscape dated 11/29/2023 for R35 revealed a charge for MCD Spendown for $750.00 on 10/24/2023, which was credited back on 11/24/2023. Review of the Resident Statement Landscape dated 11/29/2023 for R36 revealed a charge for MCD Spendown for $1544.07 on 10/3/2023, which was credited back on…
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 before2024-02-08 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — patternProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, the facility failed to ensure narcotic medications for Resident (R13) and resident funds for Residents (R29, R33, R34, R35, R36 and R37) were not misappropriated for seven of fifteen sampled residents reviewed for misappropriation. This had the potential to affect 58 residents which had physician orders for medications which were stored in the locked narcotic drawer and had the potential to affect 105 residents whose funds were managed by the facility. Findings included: 1. A review of a facility policy titled, Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation, revision date [DATE], revealed It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. A review of R13's admission Record, dated [DATE], revealed 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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Resident and Family Grievances, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve grievances and failed to ensure that grievances were documented and investigated thoroughly for three of 36 sampled residents (R) (R20, R8, and R19). Findings included: A review of the Resident and Family Grievances Policy (not dated) revealed the following: Prompt efforts to resolve include facility acknowledgment of a complaint/grievance and actively working toward resolution of that complaint/grievance. The Grievance Official is responsible for overseeing the grievance process; receiving and tracking grievances through to their conclusion; leading any necessary investigations by the facility; maintaining the confidentiality of all information associated with grievances; issuing written grievance decisions to the resident; and coordinating with stated and federal agencies as necessary in light of specific allegations. Grievances may be…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0660 — isolatedPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
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, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Transfer and Discharge (including AMA), the facility failed to develop a discharge care plan and set up home health timely for one of four sampled residents (R) (R14). Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Transfer and Discharge including Against Medical Advice (AMA), revealed .Non-Emergency Transfers or Discharges initiated by the facility, return not anticipated .Orientation for transfer or discharge will be provided and documented ot ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility, in a form and manner that the resident can understand. Depending on the circumstances, this orientation may be provided by various members of the interdisciplinary team .For a community discharge, a discharge summary and plan of care should be prepared for the resident. Document in the medical record that written discharge instructions were given to the resident and if applicable, the resident's representative . A…
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 before2024-02-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility also failed to transcribe physician orders for one of four sampled residents (R30) which resulted in the resident receiving phosphate binders (inhibits phosphorus into the blood stream during meals) without food. Findings include: A review of R30's admission Record, dated 12/23/2022, revealed diagnoses which included ESRD and dependence on renal dialysis. A review of R30's care plan, dated 11/13/2023, revealed the resident required hemodialysis related to diagnosis of ESRD. A review of R30's physician orders, dated 6/26/2023, revealed an order to give sevelamer carbonate tablet 800 mg by mouth three times a day with meals to lower phosphorus. A review of R30's physician orders, dated 12/18/2023, revealed an order to give sevelamer carbonate Tablet 800 MG by mouth three times a day. No special instructions to be given with meals. A review of R30's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated January 2024, revealed Sevelamer Carbonate 800 MG tablet was to be given three times a day at 9:00 am, 2:00 pm, and 9:00 pm. There were no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-08 · 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, interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than a five percent for two of six sampled resident (R) (R2 and R30) observed during medication pass. This resulted from two errors out of twenty-five opportunities for a medication error rate of eight percent. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, dated January 2023, reveled .Compare medications source (bubble pack, vial, etc.) with MAR to verify resident name, medication name, form, dose, route, and time. Administer within 60 minutes prior to or after scheduled time unless otherwise ordered by physician . 1. A review of R2's admission Record, dated 4/5/2022, revealed diagnoses which included hypertension and malaise. A review of R2's physician orders, dated 12/28/2023, reveal an order for meclizine 50 milligram (mg) tablet (tab) give one tab by mouth one time a day for vertigo. On 1/24/2024 at 8:43 am, an observation was made during medication…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to honor food preferences for one of four sampled residents (R) (R28). Findings include: A review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R28 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis of but not limited to of Alzheimer's Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, glaucoma, type II diabetes, and hypertension. A review of the most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed that R28 presented with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two, indicating that the resident had severe cognitive deficit. A review of facility's policy titled Resident Nutrition Services revealed each resident is provided with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preference of each resident The policy further noted that the multidisciplinary staff, including nursing staff, the Attending Physician and 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 · F2023-11-09 · tag F0563 — failed to protect the right to visitors — widespreadHonor the resident's right to receive visitors of his or her choosing, at the time of his or her choosing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights, the facility failed to allow residents to receive visitors at a time of their choosing by putting in place a visiting schedule that did not allow residents to have visitors after 8:00 pm. This failure had the potential to deny 120 of 120 residents the right to have visitors after 8:00 pm. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights dated 10/1/2022 revealed, The resident has a right to receive visitors of his or her choosing at the time of his or her choosing, subject to the resident's right to deny visitation when applicable, and in a manner that does not impose on the rights of another resident. During a Group meeting on 11/08/2023 at 3:00 pm, nine Residents (R)86, R16, R92, R102, R64, R104, R61, R63 and R90) responded that there were restrictions on visiting hours in the facility. During this meeting R90 stated his family did not get off work until after 8:00 pm. He further stated he did not have visitors due to the facility's visiting…
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 before2023-11-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policies titled, Hand Hygiene and Preventing Foodborne Illness - Employee Hygiene and Sanitary Practices, the facility failed to ensure proper sanitary conditions in the facility's only kitchen. Specifically, a dietary aide did not wash their hands properly, and a dietary cook's nametag fell onto a plate of food being prepared on the serving line. The deficient practices had the potential to contaminate food being served for the facility's 120 of 120 residents who received meals from the facility's kitchen. Finding include: Review of the facility policy titled Hand Hygiene revised June of 2023 revealed, Hand hygiene technique when using soap and water .e. Dry thoroughly with a single-use towel. f. Use clean towel to turn off the faucet. Review of the facility's undated policy titled Preventing Foodborne Illness - Employee Hygiene and Sanitary Practices revealed, Food Services employees shall follow appropriate hygiene and sanitary procedures to prevent the spread of foodborne illness. Observation on 11/8/2023 at…
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 · D2023-11-09 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by a staff member and thoroughly investigate a staff to resident incident of abuse involving one resident (R) (R122) of 36 sampled residents. Specifically, the Administration failed to interview all staff members on duty the day the alleged abuse incident occurred. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation with an implementation date of 10/1/2022 reads in part, .An Immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur. Identifying and interviewing all involved persons. including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses. and others who might have knowledge of the allegations. Review of the facility reported incident (FRI) dated 10/8/2023 revealed R122's family member (F) reported to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)5 that Certified Nursing…
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 before2023-11-09 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident's (R) (R54) Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed and submitted in a timely manner from a sample of 36 residents. Findings include: Review of the RAI Manual, dated October 2023, indicated, Chapter 5 . 5.2 Timeliness Criteria .Encoding Date: Within 7 [sic] days after completing a resident's MDS assessment or tracking record, the provider must encode the MDS .The encoding requirements are as follows: . For .discharge . assessment, encoding must occur within 7 days after the MDS Completion Date. Review of the R54's admission Record found under the profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged [DATE]. Review of the MDS listing under the MDS tab of the EMR revealed an admission MDS dated 7/3/2023 and an Entry MDS, dated 7/3/2023. Further review revealed the there was no discharge MDS completed.…
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 · D2023-11-09 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASARR (preadmission screening and resident review) Program, the facility failed to ensure an accurate Level 1 pre-screening of the resident for a mental disorder or intellectual disability prior to admission to the facility was completed or correct for one of three Residents (R) (R30) reviewed for Level 1 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASARR Program dated December 2022, stipulated that This facility coordinates assessments with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition receives care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The policy also stipulated that All applicants to this facility will be screened for serious…
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 before2023-11-09 · 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 observations, resident family member and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled, Comprehensive Care Plans' and Resident Self Determination and Participation (Activities), the facility failed to develop a care plan to include activities for one resident (R) (R91) of 36 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans implementation date of 10/1/2022 read in part . 3. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Review of facility policy titled Resident Self Determination and Participation (Activities) revised date September 2022 read in part . 4. The Activity Director shall develop a plan of care for the resident based on the resident's assessment, goals, and preferences. Review of R91's admission Record located in the electronic medical records (EMR) section titled Profile revealed the resident was admitted 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-09 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Resident Self Determination and Participation (Activities), the facility failed to provide an ongoing activity program to meet the individual interests and needs to enhance the quality of life for three Residents (R)11, R114 and R91) of 36 sampled residents reviewed for activities. Finding include: Review of facility policy titled Resident Self Determination and Participation (Activities) revised date September 2022 read in part . Policy: The facility's activity program is designed to promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice and resident rights. Each resident has the opportunity to exercise his or her autonomy regarding those things that are important in his or her life. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: l. A resident's right to self-determination includes, but is not limited to: a. The right to choose activities, schedules, health care, and providers of health care services consistent with his or her interests,…
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 · D2023-11-09 · 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
Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Fall Prevention, the facility failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were implemented for one of two residents (R)176) identified for falls in the sample of 36 residents. Specifically, R176 sustained a fall without injury while receiving incontinence care by one staff instead of two staff. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Fall Prevention with a revision date of June 2023 reads in part, .Each resident will be assessed for fall risk and will receive care and services in accordance with their individualized level of risk to minimize the likelihood of falls. Review of R176's admission Record located in the resident's electronic medical records (EMR) section titled Profile revealed the resident was admitted with diagnoses that included respiratory failure, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, morbid obesity, and tracheostomy. Review R176's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/20/2023 located in the resident's EMR section titled MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-09 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Enteral Feeding Process, the facility failed to follow Physician Orders for enteral (delivering nutrition directly to the stomach or intestine) feeding for one of three residents (R) (R11) who received nutrition through a gastrostomy tube (a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal wall incision for administration of food, fluids, and medications). The deficient practice had the potential for unintended weight loss. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Enteral Feeding Process updated June 2022 read in part, FORMULA ORDER: State feeding route, formula name, rate and if continuous or bolus feeding. If continuous add start and end times .Include the volume/kcal [kilocalorie] to be delivered in a 24-hour period in the order. Review of R11's admission Record located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) section titled Profile revealed the resident was re-admitted to the facility with diagnosis that included gastrostomy malfunction.…
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 · D2023-11-09 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, the facility failed to ensure that one of six medication carts (Front East Medication Cart) was secure when out of the site of the nursing staff. The deficient practice placed residents, staff, and visitors at risk of having unauthorized access to residents' medications. Finding included: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the pharmacy and/or medication rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: General Guidelines: a. All drugs and biologicals will be stored in locked compartments (i.e., medication carts, cabinets, drawers, refrigerators, medication rooms) under proper temperature controls. b. Only authorized personnel will have access to the keys to locked compartments. c.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$10,050 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $5,025 — penalty dated 2024-02-08
- $5,025 — penalty dated 2024-02-08
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-05-08 for 52 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 EMPIRE CARE CENTERS — 20 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 1.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 19 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YYES OP LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 08/19/2019 |
| STARLIGHT HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 17% | since 08/19/2019 |
| YW GEORGIA 4 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 18% | since 08/19/2019 |
| BERKOWITZ, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 08/19/2019 |
| WOLMARK, YEHUDA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 18% | since 08/19/2019 |
| HELLER, SHLOMO | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/29/2019 |
| EMPIRE CARE CENTERS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/19/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 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 73% 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 $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in GA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Georgia Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 115144. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-15, 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.