Pruitthealth - Rome
2 Three Mile Road NE, Rome, GA 30165 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 100 certified beds · (706) 236-6002 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Jan 2025
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $17,345 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-09)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- about 24% 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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 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 | 5.7% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.4% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.9% | 11.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.9% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.3% | 15.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.1% | 20.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 5.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.6% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.5% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 2.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.3% | 78.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.3% | 25.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.4% | 11.6% | 12.0% | worse |
§ 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.
61.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 224 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 80.8% 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 99 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 61.1%CMS range 53.8–67.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.1%CMS range 10.1–16.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 80.8% | 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 | 85.9% | 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 | 55.6% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 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 | 96.4% | 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 | 0.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 4.6–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.18 | 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 88.4 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 12 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 4.04 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.48 is at or above 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.28 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 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 32% is below 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-01-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 observation, interview, record review, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, and policy review, the facility failed to follow the COVID policies regarding how to contain the COVID virus and prevent the spread, in that the policies indicated 1; the door to the COVID positive residents' rooms were to be kept closed and that staff were to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) of a gown, mask, face shield and gloves when upon entering resident's room to provide care to residents positive for COVID; 2. to ensure transported dishes from COVID positive residents were covered and dishes were washed at 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F) temperature to sanitize, and 3. infection control measures during medication pass were to be followed for one resident (R52). The facility failed to ensure room doors remained closed for the residents who had tested positive for COVID-19 nine of 16 residents in the long (male) 100 hallway (Resident (R)81, R20, R35, R58, R43, R33, R65, R31, and R50) and the short…
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 · G2026-02-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and family interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility policy titled Care Plan, the facility failed to develop and implement the care plan for three of 24 sampled residents (R113, R85, and R53) related to (1) developing a care plan for verbalization/refusal of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for R113; (2) developing a care plan for Range of Motion (ROM) and implementing a care plan related to nail care and oral care for R85; and (3) implementing a care plan related to nail care for R53. Actual harm was identified to have occurred on 1/13/2026, when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) EE failed to implement interventions for R113 during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care, resulting in R113 sliding from the wheelchair onto the floor and sustaining a right femur fracture.Findings included:1. A review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that R113 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, major…
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 · G2026-02-20 · 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 observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility policies titled Occurrences and Dementia Care Policy, the facility failed to ensure the safety of one of three residents (R) (R113) reviewed for falls. Actual harm was identified to have occurred on 1/13/2026, when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) EE failed to implement interventions for R113 during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care, resulting in R113 sliding from the wheelchair onto the floor and sustaining a right femur fracture.Findings included:A review of the progress notes dated 1/13/2026 documented at 7:51 am revealed that R113 had a witnessed fall by staff while being adjusted on her wheelchair, that R113 slid off the wheelchair onto a sitting position with no apparent injury, that she denied pain at the time, and was assisted back in the wheelchair. Further review of the 1/13/2026 progress notes revealed that at 11:33 am, R113 complained of pain in her right leg, was given Tylenol (a pain reducer), was seen by 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 · Fcited before2026-02-20 · 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 observation, staff interviews, and review of facility policies titled Labeling, Dating, and Storage, the facility failed to ensure food items, stored in two of the two kitchen refrigerators and one of one freezer were properly dated and labeled; that one of three male kitchen staff wore facial hair restraints during food preparation; two of two fans were dirty and blowing on clear dishes and food preparation area. These failures have the potential to compromise food safety, impair sanitation practices, and increase the risk of foodborne illness for 87 of 89 residents who receive meals prepared in the facility's kitchen.Findings included:During the initial tour of the kitchen on 2/17/2026 at 9:30 am, observation revealed dirty fans in the dishwashing area over the dirty area, but was blowing toward the clean area. One fan was observed in the corner near the three-compartment sink, blowing towards the food preparation area.During an observation of the walk-in refrigerator on 2/18/2026 at 9:36 am, two pitchers of a yellowish liquid were observed with no label or date; one box…
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 · D2026-02-20 · 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 Specialty Services: Dental Services, Vision Services, Podiatry, the facility failed to ensure Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care was provided for two of two sampled residents (R) (R53 and R85) related to toenail care.Findings included:1. During an observation on 2/17/2026 at 10:33 am, R53's fingernails were observed to be long and jagged. R53 stated he had asked for them to be cut a while ago, and added his toenails were really long. R53 removed his shoes and socks, which revealed that his toenails were overgrown on both feet, curling into the skin. The toenails were cloudy/tan colored and were curled up on the side of the nails, pulling away from the nailbed.A review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that R53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to, vascular dementia, emphysema, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.A review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled Restorative Nursing Policy and Procedure, the facility failed to ensure that one of three sampled residents (R) (R85) received restorative services to prevent contractures and/or to prevent a decrease in range of motion (ROM) mobility.Findings included: During an observation on 2/17/2026 at 10:24 am, 3:59 pm, and on 2/19/2026 at 9:31 am, R85 was observed lying on his back with both hands tightly closed in a fist. He had no splints or hand rolls in his hands, and none were visible in the room. During an observation on 2/19/2026 at 9:37 am, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) II was observed providing morning Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for R85. During this observation, the CNA did not open or wash the resident's hands, and no range of motion or lotion was provided to the resident's hands. During an interview with CNA II at this time, she stated they don't do anything for R85's hands.A review of the electronic…
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 before2025-01-09 · 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 policy review, observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dish machine operated at the correct temperature and that equipment and surfaces were kept clean and in good repair. This had the potential to affect 82 of 82 residents who received meals prepared in the facility's kitchen. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Cleaning Procedures: Kitchen Area, revised 8/3/2017, provided by the facility, revealed Monthly: l. Take out removable drawers and wash them with a detergent and warm water. 2. Rinse shelves and drawers with a clean sponge or cloth. 3. Sanitize using appropriate strength solution. Check walls, ceilings, floors, and vents for chipped and/or peeling paint, and keep in good repair. Control lighting, ventilation, and humidity to prevent moisture condensation and the growth of molds and mildew. Monthly: wash the walls, ceilings, doors, and vents with hot water and detergent. Heavily soiled surfaces need to be cleaned more often. The type of surface determines the type of detergent needed and the cleaning method…
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 · E2025-01-09 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — patternAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
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 policy review, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their representatives participated in care planning conferences for four of five residents (R) (R26, R7, R51, and R29) reviewed for care conferences. The deficient practice of not inviting residents and/or family members to care planning conferences potentially could decrease resident/family satisfaction with care. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Care Plans, revised 7/27/2023, provided by the facility, revealed Document IDT [interdisciplinary team] attendance using Care Conference notes . Complete Care Conference Acknowledgement form with signature from patient/resident and/or resident representative, Care plan meetings should be documented in [electronic charting system]/LTC [long term care] using the Multidisciplinary Care Conference User Defined Assessment (UDA) as evidence that the care conference has taken place and occurred with the multidisciplinary team, the patient/resident and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-09 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 policy review, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their representatives were informed of the risks of psychotropic medications for five of five residents (R) (R83, R29, R37, R33, and F58) reviewed for psychotropic medications. The deficient practice could potentially cause residents and/or their representatives to make uninformed decisions about their treatment, increasing the risk of adverse reactions. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Unnecessary Medications Use and Monitoring, reviewed 12/5/2024, provided by the facility, revealed no mention of the discussion of the risks versus the benefits. 1. A review of R83's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 11/21/2024, in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed an admission date of 11/15/2024. R83 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 indicating R83's cognition was moderately impaired, was taking…
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 · D2025-01-09 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of facility policy, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one of 22 sampled residents (R) (R52) reviewed for self-administration of medication was capable of storing and administering her own medication. This failure created the potential for the resident to experience a medication error related to her inability to properly self-administer the medication. Findings included: The facility's Self-Administration of Medications by Patients/Residents Policy dated most recently reviewed 1/6/2025 read, in pertinent part, Each patient who desires to self-administer medication is permitted to do so if the healthcare center's Licensed Nurse and physician have determined that the practice would be safe for the patient/resident and other patients/residents of the healthcare center; and The opportunity to self-administer medications is reviewed during the routine assessment by the healthcare centers interdisciplinary team utilizing the Electronic Health Record Observation…
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 · D2025-01-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one of five residents (R) (R58) reviewed for abuse was free from misappropriation of his personal funds when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA4) wrote checks and cashed checks for herself from R58's personal checking account. This failure created the potential for this and other residents to experience further staff-to-resident misappropriation and created the potential for R58 to suffer negative financial consequences related to the misappropriation. Findings included: The facility's Abuse Prevention and Reporting Policy dated most recently revised on 8/18/2023 read, in pertinent part, Exploitation: Unjust or improper use of another person's or his/her property through undue influence, coercion, harassment, duress, deception, false representation, false pretense, or other similar means for one's own profit or advantage; and This (facility) will not tolerate abuse, neglect or exploitation of its residents by anyone.…
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 · D2025-01-09 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 policy review, observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (R) (R3) reviewed for accidents was appropriate for the use of side rails on her bed. This failure created the potential for the resident to be injured related to potentially unnecessary side rails installed and in use on her bed. Findings included: The facility's Bed Rails Policy dated most recently revised on 8/8/2024, read, in pertinent part, It is the policy of Pruitthealth and its affiliated healthcare centers (collectively, the Organization) that healthcare center patients (including those referred for rails, except when the use of bed rails has been appropriately determined to be medically necessary in accordance with this policy or in instances where the use of bed rails has been specifically requested by the patient or the patient's representative. A review of R3's Face Sheet dated 1/9/2025 indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The document indicated…
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 · D2025-01-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA3) provided care as educated through training and in-services for residents in isolation positive for 2019-nCoV, by not applying the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while providing care for two of nine residents (R) (R35 and R58) on special droplet isolation on the long 100 hallway. As a result of this deficient practice, the residents had the potential for harm by spreading the 2019-nCoV to residents who previously tested negative. Findings included: A review of the employee record for CNA3 revealed a hire date of 9/3/2024. Documentation in the record revealed an orientation checklist. A review of the Position Description Acknowledgement in the employee file for CNA3 documented I understand that as a result of my employment, I may be exposed to blood, body fluids, infectious diseases, air contaminants, and hazardous chemicals and that the healthcare center should provide to me…
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 · D2025-01-09 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to provide resident-specific activities as interventions for wandering into other resident rooms for one of 22 sampled residents (R) (R77). Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Procedure: Care of the Wandering Resident, dated 2019, provided by the facility revealed 2. Continuously reorient the resident to his or her room and belongings 3. Encourage group activities and attempt to keep the resident occupied 8. Ask the resident to fold towels and washcloths, or sort other harmless items . 13. Tag team with other staff so someone is responsible and available to visually monitor the resident at all times. A review of R77's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 10/6/2024 revealed an admission date of 9/30/2024. R77 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 out of 15 indicating R77's cognition was severely impaired, had behaviors of wandering,…
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
$17,345 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $4,147 — penalty dated 2025-01-09
- $13,198 — penalty dated 2025-01-09
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-02-20 for 56 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRUITTHEALTH — 95 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
The other 94 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 94; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNITED HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA, INC. | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/27/2013 |
| FLOYD HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2014 |
| LISA P HAMBY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/05/2003 |
| NEIL L PRUITT JR TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/05/2003 |
| NWP 2020 CHILD TR FBO J PAIGE PRUITT | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/12/2020 |
| NWP 2020 CHILD TR FBO LISA P HAMBY | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/12/2020 |
| NWP 2020 CHILD TR FBO NEIL L PRUITT JR | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/12/2020 |
| PRUITT PROPERTIES INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/27/2013 |
| UHS-PRUITT HOLDINGS, INC. | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/27/2013 |
| UNITED HEALTH SERVICES INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/27/2013 |
| SMALL, PHILIP | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/27/2013 |
| CLARK, DONNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/16/2025 |
| PRUITTHEALTH CONSULTING SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/26/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 13 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.
11 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 $2.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% 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 115719. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-20, 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.