Pebblebrook Health Center at Park Springs
5610 New Bermuda Road, Stone Mountain, GA 30087 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (678) 684-3157 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 fell from 4 to 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 | 40.3% | 15.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.6% | 0.9% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.7% | 2.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| 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 | 0.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.5% | 20.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.3% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.8% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.1% | 15.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.0% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 2.6% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.3% | 78.4% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.6% | 25.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.3% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.68 | 2.15 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.75 | 1.90 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
34.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 67 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 58.3% 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 36 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 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 | 34.4%CMS range 24.7–46.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 6.3–14.0 | 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 | 58.3% | 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 | 55.6% | 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 | 38.9% | 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 | 98.0% | 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 | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 2.0% | 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 | 6.1%CMS range 3.2–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 60 beds and averages 36.7 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 23 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 5.39 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.81 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 5.12 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.50 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.75 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-05-01 · 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, and review of the facility policies titled, Nutritional Lifestyles, Inc., Food Safety Requirements, and Foods Brought in from Outside Sources, the facility failed to ensure food items were properly stored, labeled with expiration dates, and expired foods were disposed of for one of one coolers (Main kitchen) and two of four pantries (Main kitchen and Coastal Hall) observed. In addition, the facility failed to ensure food items was properly labeled in the refrigerator/freezer and failed to ensure cleanliness for one of four refrigerators (Rehab Hall) observed. This deficient practice had the potential to cause foodborne illness for all residents. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 34 of 34 residents (R) who consume an oral diet. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Nutritious Lifestyle, Inc. dated 12/1/2011 under the section titled Policy: revealed, The consultant dietitian will monitor the storage of foods to ensure that all food served by the facility is of good quality and safe consumption. All food will…
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 · F2025-05-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Handwashing Guideline for Dietary Employees, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene between residents during meal pass in one of two dining halls (Lodge Dining Hall) observed. The deficient practices had the potential to increase the potential for cross-contamination and spread of infection. The facility census was 34. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Handwashing Guideline for Dietary Employees dated 1/2025 under the section titled Policy revealed, Handwashing is necessary to prevent the spread of bacteria that may cause foodborne illness. Dietary employees shall clean their hands in a handwashing sink or an approved automatic handwashing facility and may not clean hands in a sink for food preparation, ware washing, or in a service sink used for the disposal of mop water or similar waste. Under the section titled Compliance Guidelines: revealed, 1. Dietary employees shall keep their hands and exposed portions of their arms clean. During an observation on 4/29/2025 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 review, and review of the facility's policy titled Incidents and Accidents, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free from potential accident hazards by not ensuring sharps container was locked, failed to ensure the sharps lid was not left open and failed to ensure the correct size sharps container was secured within the placement holder for one of two medication carts (Coastal Hall). Additionally, the facility failed to ensure two of 34 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]) were free from exposure to harmful chemicals and aerosols. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Incidents and Accidents dated 1/2025 under the section titled Policy Explanation revealed, The purpose of the incident reporting can include: Assuring all appropriate and immediate interventions and implanted and corrective actions are taken to prevent recurrence and improve the management of resident care. Under the section titled Compliance Guideline…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications the facility failed to adequately assess two out of 24 sampled residents (R) (R12 and R141) for self-administration of medication. This failure had the potential to place the residents at risk for adverse consequences. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications dated April 2019 under the section titled Policy Statement revealed, Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. Under the section titled Policy Interpretation and Implementation revealed, 27. Resident may self-administer their own medications only if the attending physician, in conjunction with the interdisciplinary (IDT) team, has determined that they have the decision-making capacity to do so safely. 1. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R12 was admitted to the facility with a diagnoses that included but not limited to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Resident's Rights Regarding Treatment and Advance Directives the facility failed to ensure one out of 24 sampled Residents (R) (R145) advance directive was documented accurately throughout the medical record. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident's Rights Regarding Treatment and Advance Directives dated January 2025 under the section titled Policy Explanation and Compliance Guideline: revealed, 1. On admission, the facility will determine if the resident has executed an advance directive, and if not, determine whether the resident would like to formulate an advance directive . 3. Upon admission, should the resident have an advance directive, copies will be made and placed on the chart as well as communicated to the staff . 9. Any decision making regarding the resident's choice will be documented in the resident's medical record and communicated to the interdisciplinary team and staff responsible for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to follow a recipe when preparing puree food. This deficient practice had the potential to result in inconsistent texture modification, nutritional imbalance, and increase risk of aspiration for three of three residents receiving a puree diet. Findings include: Observation and interview on 4/30/2025 at 5:32 pm of pureed foods being prepared in the Coastal kitchen by the Coastal Homemaker DD revealed, there was no recipe being followed when pureeing the dinner meal of baked beef steak, broccoli, and mashed potatoes. Homemaker DD was observed placing three pieces of baked beef steak in the blender then started the blender. She took an ice cream scoop with the broth from the beef steak pan and put it in the blender. When asked what the serving size of the meat was Homemaker DD responded, about 3 ounces per piece she was not able to answer how much broth was added nor the size of the scoop that was used. Observation and interview on 5/1/2025 11:47 am in the Coastal kitchen revealed, Homemaker DD pureeing green peas and baked…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-11-02 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Nutritional Assessment, the facility failed to provide care and services to prevent significant weight loss and impaired nutritional needs for four of seven Residents (R) (R3, R17, R20, and R21) reviewed for nutrition and weight loss. The facility failed to provide ongoing, consistent Nutritional Assessments, with accurate documentation, provided the correct diet as ordered for R17, and develop a Nutritional Care Plan for R21. The deficient practice had the potential to place the residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings included. Review of the facility's policy titled, Nutritional Assessment, dated October 2017 revealed, .As part of the comprehensive assessment, a nutritional assessment, including current nutritional status and risk factors for impaired nutrition, shall be conducted for each resident .The dietician, in conjunction with the nursing staff and healthcare…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician ordered laboratory test was obtained in a timely manner for one of one Resident (R) (R21) reviewed for laboratory testing. The deficient practice had the potential to prevent R21 from receiving laboratory results as ordered by the physician. Findings included. Review of R21's Face Sheet located in the Face Sheet tab of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R21 was admitted with diagnoses that included alcohol induced dementia, irregular heart rhythm, and mood disorders. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) located in the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) tab of the EMR with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/10/2023 revealed R21 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score that was assessed by staff to be severely impaired in cognition for decision-making. Review of an 8/15/2023 Note to Attending Physician/Provider located in the Resident Documents tab of the EMR revealed a pharmacist recommendation to physician which stated, The resident is receiving medications which need…
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 before2022-07-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to label, and date opened food items; failed to discard food items by use by dates; failed to have appropriate garbage receptacle at hand washing sink; and failed to properly sanitize dishware, to prevent cross contamination. The census was 20. 1. Review of the policy titled Food Safety and Sanitation created 3/17, revealed First In, First Out is to pay close attention to the use by dates and be sure to label and date all opened containers or leftover food items. Continued review of the policy revealed that all leftover food items must be properly covered, labeled with the contents, and dated with a use-by date. The policy also revealed to Prevent Cross Contamination is the transfer of harmful micro-organisms from one food to another by means of a nonfood surface such as cutting boards, utensils, human hands, aprons, or rags. Observation on 7/15/22 at 9:02 a.m. of the walk-in refrigerator revealed two opened one-gallon containers of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-17 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, policy review and review of dietary recipe and menu cycle, the facility failed to ensure staff followed food recipes for preparing pureed foods to avoid compromising the nutritive value for peas and meatloaf for two of 20 residents, who received a puree diet. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Standardized Recipes, revised April 2007, revealed the food service manager will maintain the recipe file and make it available to food services staff as necessary. Review of the recipe for Glazed Meatloaf 3 oz PU Number 13. Prepare slurry. Number 14. Process until smooth adding 1 oz (ounce) slurry per portion. Number 16. Reheat to a minimum temperature of 165F (Fahrenheit) or higher for 15 seconds. Hold at 140F or higher for services. Continued review of the recipe revealed measurements as: Food Thickener Bulk - 2 tablespoon 1 1/2 teaspoon and water or stock 1 1/4 cup. Review of the Day 8 Menu Cycle for regular diet revealed portion sizes were indicated. The cycle menu for regular diets did not specify any other diets or diet consistency…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRUDEN CAPITAL LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/12/2003 |
| ISAKSON/BARNHART RETIREMENT DEVELOPMENT CO | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/12/2003 |
| STANDARD PARK SPRINGS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/12/2003 |
| WHITE-PARKSIDE STONE MOUNTAIN LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/12/2003 |
| MICHAEL BRIGHT WHITE CHILDRENS TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/12/2003 |
| OTTLEY PROPERTIES, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/12/2003 |
| PITOT OTTLEY, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2023 |
| STANDARD MORTGAGE CORPORATION | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/12/2003 |
| BARNHART, DAVID | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/11/2003 |
| ISAKSON, EDWIN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 03/11/2003 |
| ISAKSON, KEVIN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/11/2003 |
| TRUIST BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 02/01/2016 |
| ISAKSON LIVING, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/02/2025 |
| BERGER, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| GODWIN, MELODY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2022 |
| HELMS, JEFFREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/01/2018 |
| KHAN, KHURRAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/02/2025 |
| LEVATO, AMANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/02/2025 |
| ANDERSON PUBLIC RELATIONS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/30/2020 |
| IDEA ASSOCIATES | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2017 |
| LIFE CARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2014 |
| NUTRITIOUS LIFESTYLES, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| SHIFTMED, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| SMITH AND HOWARD ADVISORY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2018 |
| TRANSPERFECT HEALTH CORP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 25 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.
17 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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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, FY2023). 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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Georgia Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 115694. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-01, 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.