Eagle Health & Rehabilitation
405 S College St, Statesboro, GA 30458 · Non profit - Other · 99 certified beds · (912) 764-6108 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- 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 (F0600), cited Apr 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.9% | 15.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.7% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 11.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.6% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.3% | 15.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.8% | 20.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.6% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.2% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.8% | 19.9% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.4% | 2.6% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.7% | 78.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.1% | 25.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.2% | 11.6% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
51.0% 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 44 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.2% 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 23 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 51.0%CMS range 36.8–65.8 | 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 | 10.4%CMS range 6.1–15.9 | 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 | 52.2% | 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 | 30.4% | 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 | 60.9% | 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 | 90.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 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 | 7.4%CMS range 3.8–13.3 | 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 99 beds and averages 53.3 residents a day — about 54% occupied, or roughly 46 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.41 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.32 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.95 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.66 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.50 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-25 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received food that was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for two residents (R) (R4 and R20) of six residents who required a pureed diet. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the consistency of the pureed diet was appropriate to meet the needs of the residents. Findings included: Review of the IDDSI (International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative) dated 2019 read in part: Level 4 Pureed - Have a smooth with no lumps .not sticky .do not require chewing .Food characteristic to AVOID .tough or fibrous foods .food with skins or outer shell, food with husks, bone or gristle .stringy food .visible lumps. Examples of food to AVOID .steak .peas .corn .meat with gristle .lumps in pureed food. Review of the lunch menu for the week of 4/22/2025 through 4/24/2025 included: 4/22/2025 Beef stew, white rice, green peas, and frosted spice cake. 4/23/2025 BBQ ribs, baked beans, corn, 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 · D2025-04-25 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
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, and record review, the facility failed to provide special eating equipment and utensils and assistance for one of one resident (R) (6) reviewed for the use of adaptive equipment. Specifically, the facility failed to identify the correct position of a plate guard and who was responsible for the correct position of the plate guard on the resident's plate during meals. Findings included; R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy, lack of coordination, severe intellectual disabilities, and general weakness. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], which contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment that the staff completed, identified that the resident had long and short-term memory problems and was severely cognitively impaired and never or rarely made decisions. The resident required setup and/or clean-up assistance with meals, in which a helper set up and/or cleaned up; 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 · E2025-04-06 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prohibition, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from sexual abuse by another resident for two of three residents (R) (R1 and R4) reviewed for abuse prohibition. Specifically, the facility failed to develop or implement interventions to address R2's sexual behavior to protect R1 and R4 from sexual abuse. Findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prohibition, dated 12/27/2024, revealed the Intent section included, It is the intent of this center to actively preserve each patient's right to be free from mistreatment, neglect, abuse, or misappropriation of patient property. We believe that each patient has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion. The Guideline section included, . Identification of patients whose behavior is abusive to other patients. If a patient is identified in one of the following categories, a thorough assessment will be completed to include…
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 · E2025-04-06 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility document review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prohibition-Reporting and Investigating, the facility failed to ensure allegations of sexual abuse for three of three residents (R) (R1, R3, and R4) reviewed for abuse prohibition were reported to the state survey agency (SSA) no later than two hours after the allegations were made. Findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prohibition-Reporting and Investigating, dated 12/27/2024, revealed the Guidelines section included, Any person hearing a complaint of abuse, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, neglect, mistreatment, misappropriation of patient property, or exploitation must immediately tell the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Social Services Director, any specific department leader, or the nurse in charge. Any person identifying any signs and symptoms of abuse as listed in the Abuse Prohibition policy related to a specific patient is responsible to immediately inform the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, 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 · F2023-03-01 · 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 a review of the facility's policy titled, Food Preparation and Distribution and Storage Areas, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure meal temperatures were documented and failed to ensure dented cans were removed from the dry storage area and were not available for use. This failure had the potential to affect 37 of 39 residents who received meals from the kitchen. Findings included: A review of the Food Preparation and Distribution policy, dated 10/11/2022, revealed It is the intent of the center to prepare and distribute food in a manner that minimizes the risk of food borne illness and promotes safe food handling practices. The policy also revealed, Tray line: A temperature monitoring log should be maintained throughout meal service. Temperatures should be monitored frequently throughout meal service to ensure food quality and safety. A review of facility documents titled Hot/Cold Temperature Log from…
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 · D2023-03-01 · 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASARR) were accurate to ensure provision of the appropriate level of services for 2 of 3 residents (#8 and #35) whose PASARRs were reviewed. This failure had the potential to increase the risk for a resident with a mental illness diagnosis from not receiving specialized services. Findings included: Review of a Face Sheet indicated R#8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, and schizophrenia. Review of the Nurses Note, dated 03/28/2022, revealed R#8 was admitted to the facility on this date. The note indicated R#8 had a history of schizophrenia. Review of the Care Plan, with an onset date of 03/30/2022, revealed R#8 was taking a psychotropic drug related to schizophrenia. The most recent admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], for R#8 was severely impaired in…
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 before2023-03-01 · 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 a review of the facility's policy titled, Patient's Plan of Care, the facility failed to follow residents' individualized care plans directing staff to apply barrier cream after an incontinence episode for 2 of 3 residents (#24 and #31) who received incontinence care. This failure had the potential for residents to not receive treatment and/or care according to their needs and may cause adverse consequences. Findings included: The facility's policy titled, Patient's Plan of Care, with a review date of 12/04/2021, indicated, Each patient will have a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet his other preferences and goals, and address the patient's medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs. A review of R#24's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted R#24 with a diagnosis of anoxic brain injury. The care plan revised on 11/22/2022 indicated R#24 was at risk for skin breakdown. Interventions included using barrier cream after each incontinent episode to protect the resident's skin.…
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 · D2023-03-01 · 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
Based on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure activities of daily living (ADLs) care were provided to maintain good grooming related to facial hair for 1 of 3 residents (R) (#22) reviewed for ADL care. Findings included: Multiple requests were made for a policy that addressed the intent for shaving for residents. On 03/01/2023 at 10:00 a.m. The Administrator presented a shaving procedure guide that only explained how to shave a resident. A review of the Face Sheet for R#22 revealed the facility admitted the resident with a diagnosis that included hemiparesis (lack of movement) on the dominant right side following a stroke. A review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), for R#22 dated 02/10/2023, indicated had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated the resident had no behaviors or rejection of care. The MDS indicated R#22 required extensive assistance with personal hygiene and had impairment in functional range of motion on one side of the upper…
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 · D2023-03-01 · 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 observations, staff interviews, record review, and a review of the facility's policy titled, Perineal care, the facility failed to provide proper incontinent care by not thoroughly removing urine from the resident's skin for 2 of 3 residents (R) (#24 and #31) reviewed for incontinent care. Findings included: The facility's policy titled, Perineal care, with a review date of 12/30/2022, indicated perineal care was to ensure adequate skin care, control odor, prevent skin damage, preserve dignity, and prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible. Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Sheet (MDS), for R#24 dated 12/20/2022, indicated R#24 was sometimes understood and rarely/never understood others. The staff assessed the resident as having short-term and long-term memory impairment. The resident was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. The MDS indicated R#24 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Observation on 03/01/2023 at 9:40 a.m. Certified Nursing Assistant…
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 · D2023-03-01 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 residents (R) (#30) was free from unnecessary medications. Specifically, the facility failed to discontinue buspirone (an anxiety medication) for R#30 as ordered by the resident's physician on 01/25/2023. As of 02/28/2023, the facility continued to administer the medication to the resident. Findings included: Interview on 03/01/2023 at 2:53 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the facility had no policy related to unnecessary medications or following physician orders. Review of R#30's Face Sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis including unspecified dementia with anxiety. Review of the most recent admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), for R#30 dated 11/10/2022, revealed R#30 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, which indicated severely impaired cognition. Review of the electronic medication administration record (eMAR) indicated R#30 was started on buspirone (anti-anxiety medication) 10 milligram (mg) tablet, once daily by mouth 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 · D2023-03-01 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure laboratory testing was performed timely and as ordered by the physician for 1 (Resident #35) of 5 residents (R) (#35). Findings included: During an interview with the Administrator on 03/01/2023 at 2:23 p.m., he stated there were no policies related to laboratory testing. Review of the Face Sheet for R#35 revealed the resident was admitted with diagnoses including bipolar disorder and iron deficiency anemia. Review of the physician's orders Summary Report for R#35 revealed an order dated 08/17/2022 for a complete blood count (CBC) every six months. Further review revealed orders, dated 08/15/2022, to start ferrous sulfate (iron) 325 milligrams, one tablet by mouth twice daily for anemia and valproic acid 250 mg by mouth three times daily for bipolar disorder. In addition, R#35 had a physician order dated 08/19/2022 to obtain a valproic acid level every three months related to bipolar disorder. Review of a Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber, for R#35 dated 10/11/2022, revealed the pharmacist had conducted 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 · D2021-08-18 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor 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 ensure the right of one resident (R) (#1) to maintain personal property within her possession. The sample size was 22 residents. Findings include: Review of the clinical record for R#1 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include morbid obesity, anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented R#1 possessed adequate hearing, impaired vision, clear speech, was understood and understandable. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was documented at 12, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. During an interview on 8/15/21 at 5:01 p.m. in her room, R#1 stated she was moved from B-Hall to the A-Hall and her belongings have not been moved into her new room. During an interview with the Social Services Director (SSD) on 8/18/21 at 12:42 p.m., she stated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-08-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean environment related to dirt buildup in six shared resident bathrooms (A14, A18, A19, A20, A30, and A34) of 33 rooms. Findings include: Observations of room A19 shared bathroom on 8/15/21 at 1:20 p.m. and 8/16/21 at 8:45 a.m. revealed brown/black stains in the base of the toilet and a large black stain on the floor around the bottom of the toilet. Observations of room A20 shared bathroom on 8/15/21 at 1:30 p.m. and 8/16/21 at 9:06 a.m. revealed a brown ring around the inside base of the toilet. Grime and buildup were noted to the base of toilet on the floor. Observations on 8/15/21 starting at 2:00 p.m. and 8/16/21 starting at 1:23 p.m. revealed the following: In the shared bathroom of room A14, dust buildup was observed in the vent in bathroom and missing wall tile by the toilet paper holder. In the shared bathroom of room A18, dark colored buildup was observed inside the toilet and dust on the vent in the bathroom. In the shared bathroom of room A30, dust buildup was observed on the bathroom vent.…
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 before2021-08-18 · 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, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address the behavioral needs of one resident (R) (#31) who removes his clothing. The sample size was 22 residents. Findings include: Observations on 8/15/21 at 1:40 p.m. and 8/16/21 at 10:44 a.m. revealed R#31 was observed with no pants on and brief exposed. During an interview on 8/17/21 at 2:10 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) AA stated that R#31 requires extensive assistance with care needs and does have some behaviors such as crawling on the floor and taking off his clothes at times, which is why staff usually dress the resident early. Interview on 8/17/21 at 2:20 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) CC revealed that she works with R#31 frequently and he does require assistance with dressing. CNA CC stated that the resident does have pajamas to wear to bed and they are usually on him when she comes in in the mornings. Continued interview revealed that the resident will sometimes crawl around…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ETHICA HEALTH — 50 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 3.1 | -2.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 49 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 49; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/01/2025 |
| COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/01/2006 |
| CABLE, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/14/2003 |
| DENNIS, KATHRYN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/17/2015 |
| NICHOLS, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/19/2024 |
| PEAVY, TIFFANY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2026 |
| ROLLINS, RONNIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/14/2003 |
| WALL, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/14/2003 |
| WARNOCK, RALPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 06/23/2020 |
| CLINICAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/14/2025 |
| EASON, PAMELA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/10/2023 |
| MCCOY, TAYLOR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/21/2025 |
| PATEL, MAULIKKUMAR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 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.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $849K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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 115618. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-25, 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.