No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Tucker Operating Company LLC

2165 Idlewood Road, Tucker, GA 30084 · For profit - Individual · 136 certified beds · (770) 934-3172 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (770) 934-3172 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citations — no harm found (F0604, F0609) — most recent Nov 2025$30,000 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

Worth asking about
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $30,000 in federal fines (most recent 2023-11-03)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (70%) runs well above the national median (45%)

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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS
Urgent care / clinic
Tucker0.4 mi
4434 Hugh Howell Rd.
Pharmacy
2212 Fellowship Rd · (404) 590-3785 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
4303 Hugh Howell Rd Ste A · (770) 797-5949 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1832 Clark Dr · (404) 371-2631 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating2★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased5.6%15.3%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight15.8%5.6%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.0%0.9%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.5%2.5%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms6.6%11.3%6.5%typical
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.8%3.2%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened4.8%15.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication6.1%20.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine85.9%95.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers10.8%5.6%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control18.1%15.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table5.8%19.9%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.7%2.6%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine47.4%78.4%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission23.1%25.0%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit9.7%11.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.912.151.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.101.901.80worse

§ 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.

56.8% 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 146 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

56.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
59.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.28U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.18hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Met the expected recovery: 59.7% 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 226 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 38% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF56.8%CMS range 48.5–66.451.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.3%CMS range 7.7–12.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge59.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge59.7%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge51.3%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified99.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting90.6%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge98.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.3%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened2.1%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.1%CMS range 4.3–10.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.151.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.67
RN hours/ resident / day
0.78
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.04
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.49
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.53
RN hoursweekends
69.7%
Total nursing turnover
84.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 136 beds and averages 125.1 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.04 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.79 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.77 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 70% is well above the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-09-16)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-06-06)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.

  • Potential for harm · D2025-11-20 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Elopements and Wandering Residents, the facility failed to report elopement within two hours to law enforcement and the State Agency for one of four sampled residents (R) (R1). Findings include:Review of the undated facility policy titled Elopements and Wandering Residents documented under Policy: This facility ensures that Residents who exhibit and/or are at risk for elopement receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents and receive care in accordance with the Resident Centered Care Plan addressing the unique factors contributing to wandering or elopement risk. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 2. Alarms are not a replacement for necessary supervision. Staff are to be vigilant in responding to alarms in a timely manner.4. a. Residents will be assessed for risk of elopement and unsafe wandering upon admission and throughout their stay by the interdisciplinary care plan team.d. Adequate…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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, resident representative and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled, Incident and Accidents and Elopements and Wandering Residents, the facility failed to prevent the elopement of one of four sampled residents (R) (R1). The deficient practice had the potential to place R1 and other cognitively impaired residents at risk of compromised health and safety.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Incidents and Accidents revised 9/23/2025 documented under Policy: It is the policy of the facility for staff to report, investigate and review any accidents or incidents that occur, on facility property and may involve or allegedly involve a Resident. Under Definitions: An incident is defined as an occurrence or situation that is not consistent with the routine care of a Resident or with the operation of the organization. Under Compliance Guidelines: .5. The following incidents/accidents require an incident/accident report but are 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-09-16 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespread
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Disposal of Garbage Refuse, the facility failed to ensure areas around the garbage dumpsters were kept free from debris and failed to ensure the lids of two of two garbage disposals were kept close when not in use to prevent pest and rodents. Findings include:A review of the facility's policy titled Disposal of Garbage Refuse revised October 2024 documented under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: .6.Containers and dumpsters shall be kept covered when not being loaded. Surrounding area shall be kept clean so that accumulation of debris and insect/rodent attraction are minimized.During the initial tour of the kitchen, accompanied by the Dietary Manager on 9/9/2025 at 8:54 am, it was revealed that there were two garbage dumpsters outside of the facility. Two of two garbage dumpsters had the left open while not in use. Further observation of the areas surrounding the garbage dumpster revealed food particles, trash, and debris on the ground surrounded by flies. Some of these items on 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-09-16 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — pattern
    Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
    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, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy's titled, Safe and Comfortable Environment and Environmental Services Inspection, the facility failed to make necessary repairs as needed to maintain a homelike environment in rooms for nine of 64 sampled residents (R) (R39, R178, R47, R5, R65, R84, R93, R115 and R185) in a timely manner.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Safe and Comfortable Environment dated August 2023 documented under Policy: In accordance with Residents' rights, the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, allowing the Resident to use his or her personal belongings to the extent possible. This included ensuring that the Residents can receive care and services safely and that the physical layout of the facility, both inside and outside, maximizes Resident independence and does not pose a safety risk. The policy documented under Definitions: Environment refers to any environment in the facility that is…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-09-16 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Restraint Free Environment, the facility failed to provide freedom from restraints for one of five residents reviewed who used a Geri chair (a large, padded chair that is designed to help residents with limited mobility) out of 26 residents in the sample (Resident (R) 47).Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Restraint Free Environment implemented August 2023, revealed under Policy: It is the policy of this facility that each resident shall attain or maintain his/her highest practicable well-being in an environment that prohibits the use of physical or chemical restraints for discipline or convenience and limits restraint use to circumstances in which the resident has medical symptoms that warrant the use of such restraints. Medical Symptom refers to any indication or characteristic of a physical or psychological condition. Placing a resident in a chair that prevents the resident from rising…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-16 · tag F0655 — isolated
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, staff interview, and a review of the facility policy titled, Baseline Care Plan, the facility failed to fully develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for one of 64 sampled residents (R) (R 178).Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Baseline Care Plan dated 12/2/2022 revealed under Policy Explanation and Guidelines: 1. The baseline care plan will: a. Be developed with 48 hours of admission. b. Include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for a resident including, but not limited to: .ii. Physician orders.Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R178 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to metabolic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, anemia, dementia with unspecified severity with agitation, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and personal history of suicidal behaviors.Review of the admission Physician's orders for R178 revealed an order for Quetiapine Fumarate (an antipsychotic-psychotropic medication) 25…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-09-16 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, the facility failed to update/revise the care plan for three of 64 sampled residents (R) (R47, R113, and R4). This failure had the potential to result in nursing personnel providing inaccurate or inappropriate care for R47, R113, and R4.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans implemented March 2023, revised March 2023 revealed under Policy: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. 1. Review of the last annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed on 7/3/2025 revealed in Section P (Restraints and Alarms) was coded as none, chair prevents rising- not used. R47 was…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-06-06 · tag F0851 — widespread
    Electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on staff interview and review of the PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staffing Data Report, [NAME] Report 1705D for the First Quarter (Q1) of fiscal year 2024 (October 1-December 31), the facility failed to report accurate nurse staffing data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) related to nursing staff coverage. The facility census was 113 residents. Findings include: Review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report, [NAME] Report 1750D for Q1 2024 (October 1 through December 31), revealed a One-Star Staffing rating indicating the facility failed to submit accurate and/or timely nurse staffing data to CMS. Interview on 6/5/2024 at 1:00 pm with the Administrator revealed she was not aware of the PBJ One-Star rating for Q1 2024. She stated since the new owners took over approximately last summer, they have made a concerted effort to increase the number of nursing staff, specifically registered nurses (RNs) and certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and have also added Certified Medication Aides (CMAs). She stated they have made other significant investments into the facility; however,…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-06-06 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), the facility failed to ensure ADL care was provided for one of five residents (R) R50 related to the removal of facial hair. The sample size was 45 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) dated 11/1/2023 under the section titled Policy revealed, The facility will, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, ensure a resident's abilities in ADLs do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable. Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living: Number one, Bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care . Under the section titled Policy explanation and Compliance Guidelines, revealed Number three A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 Accidents and Supervision, the facility failed to ensure hazardous chemicals were safely secured for two of three residents (R) (R6 and R21) reviewed for accidents. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for avoidable chemical incidents, injuries, and a diminished quality of life. The sample size was 45 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Accident and Supervision, undated, under the Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: revealed, Number One (a) All staff are to be involved in observing and identifying potential hazards in the environment, while taking into consideration the unique characteristics and abilities of each resident. Number One (b)The facility should make a reasonable effort to identify the hazards and risk factors for each resident. 1. Review of R6's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed the resident had diagnoses that included carpal tunnel,…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Show the remaining 11 citations
  • Potential for harm · D2024-06-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled Accident and Supervision, Medication Storage, and Resident Self-Administration of Medication, the facility failed to store one bottle of over the counter (OTC) liquid indigestion medication in a locked medication storage area for one of 45 sampled residents (R) (R50). The deficient practice had the potential to place the resident at risk for medical complications, unauthorized persons access to medications, and a diminished quality of life. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Accident and Supervision copyright date of 2023, under the section titled Policy revealed, The resident environment will remain as free of accident hazards as possible. Under the section titled Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines revealed, Number one (a) All staff (e.g., professional, administrative, maintenance, etc.) are to be involved in observing and identifying potential hazards in 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-11-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — widespread
    Develop 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, resident and staff interviews, and review of the policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan, the facility failed to implement the Comprehensive person-centered care plan for one resident (R) R2 with a tracheostomy (trach) by not having emergency trach supplies at the bedside in the event of decannulation. In addition, the facility failed to develop a Comprehensive person-centered care plan for smoking for one resident, R1. The facility's failures created potential risks for the safety and well-being of the residents. The sample size was 33 residents. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan revised 3/2023, indicated the policy of this facility is to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment.' 1.…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-11-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — widespread
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interview, review of the facility's admission Agreement and Employee Handbook and review of the policy titled Smoking Policy, the facility failed to ensure that the environment and facility were free from potential accident hazards for residents and staff, by failing to enforce the facility's No Smoking Property guidelines in an area that has an active propane tank. The facility's failures created potential risks for the safety and well-being of the residents. The census was 118 residents. Findings include: Review of the undated policy titled Smoking Policy revealed the purpose is to facilitate the health and safety of our residents, this facility is a no smoking facility. The policy is to ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines and safety protocols, the facility prohibits smoking in its facility. Procedure: 1. Residents: a. Each resident should be individually assessed and notified as to the facility's policy. d. Residents or staff may not provide other residents with cigarettes and may not light a cigarette for another…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-11-03 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — widespread
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, and review of the policy titled Tracheostomy Care, the facility failed to provide respiratory/tracheostomy care by trained and competent nursing staff according to professional standards, failed to develop a policy/procedure for accidental dislodgement of trach tubes, and failed to have emergency tracheostomy supplies at the bedside for one resident (R2) of three residents receiving tracheostomy care. The facility's failures created potential risks for the safety and well-being of the residents. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Tracheostomy Care copyright 2022, indicated the facility will ensure that residents who need respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and resident goals and preferences. Compliance Guidelines: Number 3. Tracheostomy care will be provided according to physician orders, comprehensive…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-11-03 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespread
    Administer the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
    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, interviews, review of the Administrator and Director of Nursing job descriptions, and review of the policy titled Smoling Policy, the facility administration failed to provide oversight and monitoring of the facility operations related to enforcement of its No Smoking Policy and failed to ensure that licensed nursing staff were knowledgeable and competent to act in emergency situations for decannulation of tracheostomy tubes. The facility's failures created potential risks for the safety and well-being of the residents. The census was 118 residents. Specifically 1. Facility Administrator and Director of Nursing failed to perform duties of their job descriptions that facilitated medical care to the residents of the facility. 2. Administration failed to enforce No Smoking Facility/Property by allowing staff and resident (R) R1 to smoke on facility property in close proximity to an active propane tank. Cross Refer F689 3. Facility administration failed to maintain emergency…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-11-03 · tag F0926 — failed to keep the home smoke-free / fire-safe — widespread
    Have policies on smoking.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record review, interviews, review of facility's Employee Handbook, admission Packet, and policy titled Smoking Policy, the facility failed to ensure that there was a policy developed outlining the procedures of a non-smoking facility and smoke free property, including the potential outcomes when individuals smoke on the facility property. Specifically, two facility staff and one resident (R) R1 were allowed to smoke on the facility property near an active propane tank. The facility's failures created potential risks for the safety and well-being of the residents. The census is 118 residents. Findings include: Review of the undated policy titled Attachment J-Smoking Policy revealed the purpose is to facilitate the health and safety of our residents, this facility is a no smoking facility. The policy is to ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines and safety protocols, the facility prohibits smoking in its facility. Procedure: 11. Designated Areas: a. Outdoor areas may be designated as smoking areas. Designated areas will have i. signage to indicate 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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-11-03 · tag F0940 — failed to train staff — widespread
    Develop, implement, and/or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members.
    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 job description for the Director of Nursing, the facility failed to ensure clinical staff were trained and competent to provide emergency care for accidental trach dislodgement for one of three residents (R) R2 reviewed for tracheotomy care. The facility's failure to properly train staff for complex care of tracheostomies and emergency airway maintenance resulted in R2 trach becoming dislodged, and R2 required surgical intervention to reinsert tracheostomy tube. The facility's failures created potential risks for the safety and well-being of the residents. Findings include: Review of the undated document titled Director of Nursing Job Description, signed and dated 3/2023 by current Director of Nursing, indicated the Major duties and Responsibilities include: *Conducts observations of nursing care and supervises development of in-service education to ensure nursing staff is competent in current knowledge and skills. *Promotes safe work practices, safety…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-03 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    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, resident and staff interviews, and the Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, r. 410-10-.03, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality by providing two non-pharmacist labeled prescription medications at time of discharge for one resident (R) R9 of three sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, r. 410-10-.03 Definition of Unprofessional Conduct (Georgia Administrative Code). Department 410. Rules of Georgia Board of Nursing, Chapter 410-10. Standards of Practice and Unprofessional Conduct. https://rules.sos.ga.gov/[NAME]/410-10-.03 stated: (1) Nursing conduct failing to meet the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice, which could jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of the public, shall constitute unprofessional conduct. This conduct shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (2) Practice * Using inappropriate or unsafe judgment, technical skills or…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-12-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, facility documentation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that it maintained a clean and comfortable home-like environment for four residents (R), (R#37, R#31, R#51, R#62) related to dirty wheelchairs; and six resident rooms (217, 219, 220, 222, 224, 227) with dirty floors, dirty windowsills, damaged walls and doors, dirty equipment, and improper functioning air mattress. The facility census was 87 residents. Findings include: Review of a document provided by the facility titled Logbook Documentation-conduct wheelchair inspection, revealed to check wheelchairs for proper operation and check for cleanliness, and was as marked on dated 3/31/22, 1. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) for R#37 revealed she was admitted to the facility 10/1/2018. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated no cognitive impairment. Observation on 12/20/2022 at 11:20…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-12-27 · tag F0655 — isolated
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, and review of the policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for one newly admitted resident (R) (R#382) that included goals and interventions related to oxygen use, tracheostomy care, and gastrostomy tube feeding. The sample size was 43 residents. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, revealed it is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Policy Explanation: number 3.a. The comprehensive care plan will include the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Review of the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-12-27 · tag F0661 — isolated
    Ensure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
    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 policy titled Transfer, Discharge, Return to Facility, the facility failed to ensure the Discharge Summary was completed in its entirety, for one resident (R) (R#232). The sample size was 43 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Transfer, Discharge, Return to Facility (including AMA), dated 10/18/2022, revealed Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines number 14 b. Anticipated Transfers or Discharges-resident-initiated discharges: a member of the interdisciplinary team completes relevant sections of the Discharge Summary. The nurse caring for the resident at the time of discharge is responsible for ensuring the Discharge Summary is complete and includes, but not limited to, the following: i. A recap of the resident's stay that includes diagnoses, course of illness/treatment or therapy, and pertinent lab, radiology, and consultation results. ii. A final summary of the resident's status. iii. Reconciliation of all pre-discharge…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$30,000 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $30,000 — penalty dated 2023-11-03

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to MICHAEL FEIST — 7 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 53.6-1.6 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 53.1-1.1 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.3-0.3 vs chain
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
FEIST, MICHAELIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL100%since 08/01/2023
JACOBOWITZ, KALMANIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 08/01/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

$15.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+13.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.7M
Related-party expense13% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 76%Medicare 21%Other / private 3%

About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$408per resident / day
operating cost
$12,404per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$472per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Georgia
$8,821/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,429/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,300/mo
Assisted living

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 115596. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-16, 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.

What to do next